“the other” is a shapeless concept in anthropology/the social sciences which i never quite understood — prolly ’cause the anthropologists/social scientists don’t understand it themselves. it’s got something to do with how we react to people who are unlike ourselves somehow or in some way … different headdresses or tattoos or taste in music … or something like that. it might’ve been a useful concept if they’d looked at it from the p.o.v. of genetics, but they mostly didn’t so … never mind….
anyway.
in light of the scandals in rotherham, i thought i’d take some time out from the regularly scheduled program to present a couple of very vague ideas i have related to sex and genetic relatedness between individuals/groups. i haven’t really thought through these ideas, so they’re very vague. don’t say i didn’t warn you. (also, could be that actual scientists have already thought through/done lots of research on all of these already and i’m not aware of it. if so, just ignore me.)
vague thought number one:
if the prime directive is to reproduce your genes (or at least those that would have an effect in this case) as much as possible, one tactic in achieving that goal might be to reduce how much your competitors — those individuals unrelated to you who don’t share your genes — manage to reproduce their genes. you could do that by a) killing them, and/or b) preventing them from reproducing in some other way.
one way to prevent “the other” guys from reproducing (so much) would be to mate as much as possible with, if you imagine two neighboring tribes, their usual mates. then, not only do you reduce the actual reproduction of “the other” guys’ genes, you also increase your own and spread your genes even that much further than you would’ve if you just stuck to the members of your own tribe. so it’s possible — possible — then that a special drive for mating with “the other” could’ve been something that was selected for ’cause it might’ve paid off.
however, you would think this would be a better strategy for men than for women since reproduction for human females is such a long, drawn-out, costly affair, whereas men can just spread their seed hither and thither without a care in the world. a drive for sex with “the other” might, then, be stronger in men than in women, and might even result in a certain amount of sexual coercion (to put it nicely) since the women don’t really want to engage in this sex with “the other” so much. and this coercion might be applied more often to unrelated/unlike females than to related/like females a la ghengis khan and his band of literal brothers sweeping across eurasia raping and pillaging wherever they went (that’d be one of the more extreme examples — extreme in terms of behaviors exhibited and in terms of success).
_____
vague thought number two:
in my world of inbred populations, familial altruism rules the day because it pays more — inclusive fitness-wise — to be altruistic towards your family members, since you share an inordinate number of genes with them compared to non-family members. perhaps, too, in an inbred society it would also pay more to mate with “the other” (as described above) if and when you could since, in an inbred society, the different extended families/clans are less related to one another than families in an outbred society. by mating with your unrelated neighbor’s sister, you’re (heh) screwing him genetically more than a guy in an outbred society would do to his neighbor. in other words, perhaps a stronger drive to mate with “the other” could be selected for in inbred societies because the effect of “vague thought number one” would be amplified. (perhaps this is why peoples in the arab world/middle east cover their women up in burkas — for their own protection just like they often say!)
_____
vague thought number three:
glenn daniel wilson has suggested that rape is/was a reproductive strategy of — i guess the gameboyz would call them beta males — guys who didn’t have access to females ’cause some alpha males had all or most of the access. maybe, then, the drive to rape is a response to polygamy. maybe. if so, that would certainly seem to fit the arab world and might explain why they are overly protective of their women (burkas, purdah). might even explain what happened in rotherham. i have to admit, i’m not 100% convinced by this one. i think it might be part of the explanation, but not the sole one.
_____
vague thought number four:
i’ve been meaning to do a post on this, but just haven’t gotten around to it, so i’ll just tack it on here. sex drives and the hajnal line — something which jayman mentioned in the comments here.
you’ve probably all seen henry harpending and greg cochran’s recent (very cool!) discussions about fathers’ ages and mutation rates (most recent example here). my question, wrt the late marriage trend in western europe for both men and women, is: has there been any selection for behaviors related to these late marriages?
if — if — over the last few hundred years, those nw europeans who married (i.e. mated) at a later age were more successful at leaving their genes behind than those who married young, were certain behavioral traits related to this selected for? greater ability to delay gratification, for instance (in this case sexual gratification!)? relatively lower libido (“no sex, please, we’re british!” — see also monty python)? other traits i haven’t thought of?
like jayman said in his comment, in most of the world even today — and in many more parts up until very recently — a 14, 15, 16 year-old girl is/was considered very marriable/matable. maybe nw europeans feel that relatively less so. dunno.
(note: comments do not require an email. funny headdress.)
hbd chick 
Simply brilliant, on all points! I’ve tried to spread the word on this one.
The question is (and something I’ve always wondered considering modern people’s behavior), do NW Europeans have lower sex drives, on average, than even other Europeans? I mean, how did most people avoid sex until marriage when that didn’t happen until one’s mid to late 20s? I can’t see the bulk of people today doing that (a good few, but not most by any means).
@jayman – “The question is (and something I’ve always wondered considering modern people’s behavior), do NW Europeans have lower sex drives, on average, than even other Europeans?”
i think the answer to that must be yes (and the monty python skit backs me up on this because, of course, the irish catholic neighbors are from outside the hajnal line (~_^) ). any girl who has traveled at all around europe knows this. sure, you’ll be hit on in england or northern europe, but in a very mild, rather gentlemanly manner (unless you’re in blackpool on a saturday night (~_^) ) … but when you get to italy or greece or spain ….
well, there are stereotypes for a reason. ’cause they’re largely true!
would be nice to have some sort of real stats, though. not just anecdatal evidence. hormone measurements at nightclubs….
@jayman – “Simply brilliant, on all points!”
awwww, shucks. (*^_^*)
@HBD Chick:
“… but when you get to italy or greece or spain ….
well, there are stereotypes for a reason. ’cause they’re largely true!”
There’s definitely that. James Watson and his English Patient comes to mind… Certainly the Western peripheral groups have a reputation for higher libidos. But how do Eastern Europeans, particularly northeastern ones, fit? And for that matter, what about East Asians? These peoples have a history of early marriage. Yet somehow when I think of Russians, I don’t picture the most aggressive lovers in the world…(maybe I just don’t know that many Russians).
@jayman – “Yet somehow when I think of Russians, I don’t picture the most aggressive lovers in the world…”
oh, i dunno. the stereotype i have of russians is certainly not like that of the flirty, romantic italians who, while sitting in one train in the station, have been known to hand a single red rose across to unknown young women in an adjacent train (really happened! – *sigh* (~_^) ). rather, the russians have that grand, insatiable, tragic (of course!) passion of tolstoy (anna karenina) or bunin (wolves & other love stories). the russians have got … something!
“All, everything that I understand, I understand only because I love.” – tolstoy.
@hbdchick On the question of NW Europeans having lower sex drive, if it were true I would have a question for my Scotch Irish, yeoman English mother and my my Scotch Irish atistocrat English father as to how come I’m Scotch Irish English from the waist up and Burkina Faso from the waist down? along with all the other males in the family tree I have ever met.
On “vague thought one” of course my own slant is that by making the women of the other tribe pregnant one depresses their fertility in the long run, but ignoring that consider the “war hag.” Any society that is going to survive must take the best possible care of the fertile females – obviously. A tribe that is being slowly wiped out can’t always do that. So their women have sun bleached hair, sun tanned or burned skin, chapped red lips, dark rings under the eye (chronic stress does that because cortisol and the melanin producing hormone have overlapping effects, remember the rings under FDR’s eyes. And he was only stressed out for thirteen years and didn’t watch his family members being slaughtered.) skimpy clothing, are starved and have the hundred mile stare of post traumatic stress disorder. In other words they look like high fashion models. To a male that just means, “Rape me.” Most of us are too polite (if you have strong sex drives you must learn to be polite, like a giant must learn to be gentle) to take action, but we pick up the signal.
So it looks like evolution has been working on the project whatever the genetic advantage for the rapist is.
@hbd chick you’ll be hit on in england…in a very mild, rather gentlemanly manner…but when you get to italy or greece or spain ….
@JayMan James Watson and his English Patient comes to mind…
@hbd chick stereotype…of the flirty, romantic italians…unknown young women
Relevant to this topic.
Your speculations are consistent and coherent.
@sNoOOPy – “Relevant to this topic.”
(^_^) (^_^) (^_^)
i love pepe le pew! (^_^)
@linton – “On the question of NW Europeans having lower sex drive, if it were true I would have a question for my Scotch Irish, yeoman English mother and my my Scotch Irish atistocrat English father as to how come I’m Scotch Irish English from the waist up and Burkina Faso from the waist down?”
well, i suspect that you amorous scotch-irish ought to, like the irish, be viewed as coming from outside the hajnal line rather than from behind it, so the scotch-irish aren’t really nw europeans the way my “core” europeans are. they (you guys) certainly aren’t like other nw europeans in terms of cousin/close marriage patterns (see here and here). your ancestors’ mating patterns were more like the irish — and the italians and the greeks, etc., etc.
@ hbd chick: “well, i suspect that you amorous scotch-irish ought to, like the irish, be viewed as coming from outside the hajnal line rather than from behind it,” Perhaps you are right.
But I do find it hard to believe. If those others have so much testosterone effect how come we keep persecuting them?
@linton – “If those others have so much testosterone effect how come we keep persecuting them?”
huh?
@hbdchick “huh?” All right. I guess that was dumb. The idea is that if those inbred dusky brethren were so much more manly than the less virile northern Europeans, then they should should have won all the fights and have colonized the north. Now that I pause, there’s a bunch of answers. First they ARE colonizing the north. Second outbreeding probably produces more robust physical specimens – heterozgote advantage andall. An athlete wants the smalles bones he can use without them breaking, but in a punch up or war it’s better to have bigger bones. Third, well yes, inbreeding probably does increase virility compared with outbreeding; it’d forgotten that. But I’ll stick with my guns on the notion (didn’t somebody mention it?) that somehow darker complection means greater virility. Stuff and nonsense. Your population can be fishbelly white but if you inbreed judiciously (what Bateson calls optimal outbreeding) you’re going to have birth rates through the roof and that has to be in part due to virility.
So forget I said that about why do we persecute them and not vise versa. Sorry.
@linton – “All right. I guess that was dumb.”
nah, i just didn’t understand what you meant.
@linton – “The idea is that if those inbred dusky brethren were so much more manly than the less virile northern Europeans, then they should should have won all the fights and have colonized the north.“
well, it helps to have lots of iq points, too.
@linton – “Now that I pause, there’s a bunch of answers. First they ARE colonizing the north.”
yes. it should be noted, with the help of our so-called leaders. =/
If you check reports about the various civil wars around the Congo you’ll find lots of women with multiple children from rapes. I think rape is an r-type reproductive strategy which was gradually bred out of most populations as k-type reproductive strategies became dominant.
I think
1) The r-type behaviors are still there but suppressed by the k-type ones.
2) The suppression is weakened when directed towards an out-group.
3) A culture with a restrictive marriage system needs to control women more and therefore having weaker sanctions against behavior that controls women would make sense. Hence lower pressure over time to breed out those behaviors.
4) A culture with an open marriage system would have to select out those behaviors much more strongly for the system to work.
5) As you say, having r-type strategies directed at women from another ethnic group and k-type strategies among your own is a form of stealth warfare. You are inflicting less adaptive strategies on your enemy.
“however, you would think this would be a better strategy for men than for women since reproduction for human females is such a long, drawn-out, costly affair, whereas men can just spread their seed hither and thither without a care in the world.”
That’s a simplistic interpretation. It essentially assumes that all men can be alphas, which is… impossible. Obviously other men have to be very commited based on their limited ability to spread their seed. There is also the inherent reality that kids need fathers. Fathers are important in their kids survival and important to the groups survival. In short, polygamy kinda produces crap…
Maybe the above is why men initiate less divorces than women and take divorce worse. Men appear to be more commited, at least in modern times.
“a drive for sex with “the other” might, then, be stronger in men than in women, and might even result in a certain amount of sexual coercion (to put it nicely)”
No need to put it lightly. By a CDC study (2010) as many woman rape men as men rape women over a 12 month period.
BTW, the study simply was NOT trying to be pc. They defined “forced penetration” on women as rape, but they defined “forced to penetrate” as sexual assault… WTF! anyways, ya, women rape men too.
See page 28
Click to access NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf
Moderation, again?
Whhhhhyyyyy
@princenuadha – “Moderation, again? Whhhhhyyyyy”
oh, jerky comments by some people. but, if you comment from the same ip you should be good. i have the moderation set so that i only have to approve the first comment (that seems to be enough to deter the jerks — for now anyway).
@princenuadha – “That’s a simplistic interpretation. It essentially assumes that all men can be alphas….”
no, it doesn’t assume that. it just assumes what i said — that it’s generally easier for men to reproduce than women. a woman can only have a limited number of kids in her lifetime — a man? lots!
@princenuadha – “By a CDC study (2010) as many woman rape men as men rape women over a 12 month period.”
was that sexual coercion of “the other” which is what i was talking about here? egs. someone of another ethnic group or race?
@princenuadha:
” ‘however, you would think this would be a better strategy for men than for women since reproduction for human females is such a long, drawn-out, costly affair, whereas men can just spread their seed hither and thither without a care in the world.’
That’s a simplistic interpretation. It essentially assumes that all men can be alphas, which is… impossible. Obviously other men have to be very commited based on their limited ability to spread their seed. There is also the inherent reality that kids need fathers. Fathers are important in their kids survival and important to the groups survival. In short, polygamy kinda produces crap…”
Conditional strategies my friend, conditional strategies. We can all, or mostly, be programmed with a certain set of strategies to use in response to certain circumstances. In one set of circumstances, we use one strategy; in another, we use a different one. One has to think about minimum required reproductive input of men vs women. Men have a easier time procreating, and it can easily be a secondary strategy to impregnate an “out”-group’s women should the opportunity arise, while primarily heavily investing in one’s own “in”-group children.
As well, you overlook the obvious between-group variation in the male inclination towards polygyny. It is highest among West Africans and lowest in perhaps NW Europeans and East Asians. It’s a matter of necessary levels of paternal investment. Among the Bantus, women were more or less self-sufficient, so children didn’t need fathers. Hence, polygyny rates are high. By contrast, among Euros, necessary levels of paternal investment are high, so polygyny rates are low (since few men could afford to support multiple wives). Note that, even in NW Europe, de facto polygyny was never non-existent.
Whether a man prefers monogamy of polygyny is heavily affected by their genetics, particularly the AVPR1A gene. Men with some variants are more suited to monogamy, men with other variants less.
Maybe the above is why men initiate less divorces than women and take divorce worse. Men appear to be more commited, at least in modern times.
Hmmm, how many of those divorces initiated by women were initiated because of male infidelity?
@ jayman
This
“Conditional strategies my friend, conditional strategies. We can all, or mostly, be programmed with a certain set of strategies to use in response to certain circumstances.”
Contradicts this
“Whether a man prefers monogamy of polygyny is heavily affected by their genetics, particularly the AVPR1A gene. Men with some variants are more suited to monogamy, men with other variants less.”
“As well, you overlook the obvious between-group variation in the male inclination towards polygyny. It is highest among West Africans and lowest in perhaps NW Europeans and East Asians.”
I’m not talking about polygamy rates, I’m talking about men and their inclinations.
From hbdc “whereas men can just spread their seed hither and thither without a care in the world” should instead read “some”.
The commitment of men today seems to be higher.
“Hmmm, how many of those divorces initiated by women were initiated because of male infidelity?”
No! Lesbians Initiate Divorce As Often As Straight Women (and far more than gay men)
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/04/05/politics-and-feminism/lesbians-initiate-divorce-as-often-as-straight-women/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HookingUpSmart+%28Hooking+Up+Smart%29
Again, men taking divorce worse, and commiting suicide more often because of it, implies a deep commitment. So deep that it sometimes prevents them from spreading their seed. An “advantageous” trait is not always advantageous.
@jayman
“By contrast, among Euros, necessary levels of paternal investment are high, so polygyny rates are low (since few men could afford to support multiple wives).”
I get what you’re saying, but I just want to point out that It’s not really about supporting the wives. It’s about supporting the kids, resource-capital AND human capital, ie fathering.
Interestingly, a fathers smarts is a better predictor of his kids’ success, than his money. Some of that is obviously about a father teaching his kid. There’s also a whole slew of emotional issues that fathers are responsible for in their kids.
“a woman can only have a limited number of kids in her lifetime — a man? lots!”
Men can only have as many kids as women do. That’s the point I’m trying to get across. When there is a polygamous guy, other men will necessarily have less opportunies. Therefore, they will need different strategies for finding a mate and taking care of his kids. This will likely predispose them to certain behaviors via evolution.
“was that sexual coercion of “the other” which is what i was talking about here? egs. someone of another ethnic group or race?”
Arent you ultimately talking about sexual coercion? As in, taking someone without their permission, thus no high expectations on the other persons’ parental involvement.
If a white woman rapes a white man, why not rape one of the “other”? Seems to be the same. Only if there is some need to overide and eliminate the “other” would men have more reason to rape the “other”. But that doesn’t seem to make sense.
@jayman – “Whether a man prefers monogamy of polygyny is heavily affected by their genetics, particularly the AVPR1A gene. Men with some variants are more suited to monogamy, men with other variants less.”
cool! i didn’t know that they’d looked at this in humans. i always refer back to the vasopressin studies in prairie voles. (~_^) thanks for the link!
@princenuadha – “Only if there is some need to overide and eliminate the ‘other’ would men have more reason to rape the ‘other’. But that doesn’t seem to make sense.”
well, but it might, and that’s what i was trying to get at.
let me run through the logic again:
– if — if — the ultimate goal of The Game of Life is to leave behind as many of your genes as possible, then the obvious thing to do is to have as many kids as possible.
– another tactic — which could be used in conjunction with the first one — might be to reduce the number of genes the other guy leaves behind.
– to achieve this second goal, you need to stop the other guy from reproducing — or reduce how much he reproduces. to do this, you could just eliminate him completely, or impede his reproductive activities.
– one way you could do the second would be by mating with his women (in his band, clan, tribe, whatever) — with whom he shares a lot of genes. by mating with his women, you 1) reduce the amount of reproducing he could be doing with his women (and his genes) — you block him in other words; and 2) spread your genes into his population. instead of his genes being combined with the like genes that he shares with his women, his women now propogate your genes.
– this, i think, ought to apply more to men than to women because reproducing for women is so time-consuming/costly. women are limited to — what? — a max 20 kids (or pregnancies) per lifetime, give or take a few kids. it wouldn’t, then, make sense for women, on the whole, to use my reduce-the-others’-mating-potential-by-mating-with-them strategy because our reproductive potential is so limited. it would make more sense — if the goal in The Game of Life is to reproduce your own genes as much as possible — for women to mate with individuals mostly like themselves.
– so, i think that there could be an evolutionary push towards sexual coercion of “the other” in men, but not so much in women. in fact, because there ought to be a general reluctance to mate with “the other” in women (i don’t know if that’s right or not — that’s just me theorizing), then that might push the sexual coercion drive in men even further — since the women are reluctant(-ish).
i’d sort-of vaguely been thinking along these lines before, but the thought came to my mind again when i read that these pakistani men in rotherham (and elsewhere in england) have been sexually abusing mostly white girls, and some black girls, and not pakistani girls.
perhaps the — entirely unconscious, of course — secondary (because they’ve prolly got wives) mating strategy of these pakistani men was to target non-pakistani girls because they have a drive to do so due to their evolutionary history. all of the groups involved in these grooming cases — pakistanis, iraqi kurds, kosovans — are all inbred groups who, as i’ve been talking about ad nauseum, seem to have strong familial altruism tendencies. their extended families/clans/tribes come first and foremost at the expense of others. i think that, if that is right, then it follows logically that these sentiments would also be tied into reproductive drives, because what is more fundamental in biology except reproduction?
prince, your point is true but irrelevant. yes, men as a group can only have as many children as women can as a group. but INDIVIDUAL men can have many ties more children than any woman could. like thousands more. from an evolutionary standpoint, the male sex exists because it is the high risk/ high reward option– less likelihood to reproduce, but the potential for far greater fertility. historically for our species, about2x as many women have reproduced than men have. but only the male sex is capable of huge outliers like Genghis Khan.
With that in mind, a man who rapes women of the rival outgroup (like Genghis Khan) is practicing pretty good strategy,for reasons hbd chick said above. Women don’t rape because, even aside from being weaker than men, THEY have to carry the resulting child to term– while the enemy tribesman who is raped can just run off and sire50 more kids while she is pregnant. It doesn’t harm “the Other” at all.
I mean, duh.
@princenuadha:
“This
‘Conditional strategies my friend, conditional strategies. We can all, or mostly, be programmed with a certain set of strategies to use in response to certain circumstances.’
Contradicts this
‘Whether a man prefers monogamy of polygyny is heavily affected by their genetics, particularly the AVPR1A gene. Men with some variants are more suited to monogamy, men with other variants less.’
Not at all. There are many alleles of said gene, and that, coupled with the other genes that influence the trait, means that men’s behavior wrt monogamy/polygyny exists on a continuum. Some men are heavily oriented to monogamy, others to polygyny (or variants of such, such as having the occasional fling on the side with the “goal” of spreading one’s seed), with the exact behavior depending on the circumstances.
“From hbdc ‘whereas men can just spread their seed hither and thither without a care in the world’ should instead read ‘some’.
I would think that’s understood, yes? That’s like needing to add “on average” every time one refers to group wide differences…
“Lesbians Initiate Divorce As Often As Straight Women (and far more than gay men)”
Perhaps the difference may have something to do with female penchant for hypergamy whereas males lean towards polygyny. Men may not view going outside the relationship as a reason to end it, where as women might… Of course, there’s also lesbian “bed death.”.
“Interestingly, a fathers smarts is a better predictor of his kids’ success, than his money. Some of that is obviously about a father teaching his kid.
Um, IQ is >80% heritable?
“There’s also a whole slew of emotional issues that fathers are responsible for in their kids.”
Apparently, you haven’t seen my first blog post. I’d really suggest checking it out.
“Again, men taking divorce worse, and commiting suicide more often because of it, implies a deep commitment. So deep that it sometimes prevents them from spreading their seed.”
These would primarily be your monogamous men. Even men who cheat on their don’t always necessarily want “out” of their marriage (polygyny vs hypergamy).
“- if — if — the ultimate goal of The Game of Life is to leave behind as many of your genes as possible, then the obvious thing to do is to have as many kids as possible.”
This is a fundamental flaw in your interpretation of evolution.
Evolution may produce traits that enhance reproductive success, but these traits have limited usefulness and may compete with other traits that might be useful in areas the former was lacking. In short, evolution evolution produces useful traits, but these traits aren’t great for all situations.
That’s why a person may sacrifice themselves for a person they are not related to. That’s why parents might adopt a child. That’s why men take divorce with heart break and maybe even suicide. All these traits can be benefitial in a general setting (altruism, parenting instinct, love and fatherhood) but in certain senarios they can be “harmful” to the cause.
Besides, the data doesn’t bare out for your theory. Men (in america) aren’t raping women more than the reverse, and men are actually the ones who seem to take divorce worse. They aren’t running around spreading their seed without remorse.
“- another tactic — which could be used in conjunction with the first one — might be to reduce the number of genes the other guy leaves behind.”
No… There isn’t a general goal to stop some other guy from spreading his genes? Where did you get that idea?
Look at the population curve. That random other guy reproducing and raising his kids does not impede my reproductive success, it actually helps it! Him and I can build a better and more stable economy.
“Some men are heavily oriented to monogamy, others to polygyny”
So those men aren’t using conditional strategies.
“I would think that’s understood, yes? That’s like needing to add “on average” every time one refers to group wide differences…”
She is trying to describe men in general, or those “types” as generally being men. I don’t buy it.
“Perhaps the difference may have something to do with female penchant for hypergamy whereas males lean towards polygyny. Men may not view going outside the relationship as a reason to end it, where as women might…”
For one, men don’t cheat more. You bring up a good point about the possible different views of marriage, but it is pretty obvious that the sexual market is far more open outside of continued marriage than inside continued marriage. For the past decades women have ultimately pushed the former, and men less so.
So no, men aren’t running around spreading their seed more than women, and nor are men pushing for the creation of that culture.
A side note, wouldn’t hypergamy lead white women to mate with rich black men?
“Apparently, you haven’t seen my first blog post. I’d really suggest checking it out.”
I.haven’t. I’ll check it out.
@princenuadha – “Men (in america) aren’t raping women more than the reverse….”
well, i’m not talking about american men (esp. wasp american men). see post. (~_^)
@princenuada – “There isn’t a general goal to stop some other guy from spreading his genes? Where did you get that idea?”
i thunk it up all by myself.
@princenuadha”
“‘Some men are heavily oriented to monogamy, others to polygyny’
So those men aren’t using conditional strategies.”
The two things aren’t mutually exclusive. Men vary in their preference for each strategy, but which one they end up using use may depend on the circumstances.
“She is trying to describe men in general, or those “types” as generally being men. I don’t buy it.”
Since the minimum reproductive investment for men is much lower than it is for women, natural selection would have favored males more often partaking in risky strategies.
“For one, men don’t cheat more. “
Evidence?
“So no, men aren’t running around spreading their seed more than women,”
History would disagree with you.
“and nor are men pushing for the creation of that culture.”
Ask Warren Jeffs what he thinks about that.
@Jayman “”For one, men don’t cheat more. ” Evidence?” Princenuadha has a point if you restrict the issue to heterosexual sex and exclude events with more than two engaged in sex. There are about the same number of men as women. For every time a man cheats there must be a woman cheating at the same time. Hence both sexes cheat at the same rate.
@Linton Herbert:
“There are about the same number of men as women. For every time a man cheats there must be a woman cheating at the same time. Hence both sexes cheat at the same rate.”
Um, not all men or women are in relationships at any given time?
@JayMan “Um, not all men or women are in relationships at any given time?” Good point. But I’d say that if my best friend, who is not otherwise in a relationship, seduces my wife, then he’s cheating, just as she is. If you have another word for it then, yes, it knocks the issue into a cocked hat.
> well, i’m not talking about american men (esp. wasp american men). see post. (~_^)
Did : )
>>however, you would think this would be a better strategy for men than for women since reproduction for human females is such a long, drawn-out, costly affair, whereas men can just spread their seed hither and thither without a care in the world. a drive for sex with “the other” might, then, be stronger in men than in women, and might even result in a certain amount of sexual coercion (to put it nicely) since the women don’t really want to engage in this sex with “the other” so much.
>Since the minimum reproductive investment for men is much lower than it is for women, natural selection would have favored males more often partaking in risky strategies.
Not that simple. For whatever reason men develop strong attachments (maybe because the kids need that and or maybe cause most men won’t have many opportunisties.
Again, the reality is that men take divorce worse and suicide more over it. The reality is that more women end marriage more often, opening up the sex market.
>History would disagree with you.
I’m talking the average man who could have casual sex and walk away but probably wouldn’t.
Also polygamy does not imply rape of the “other”
> Ask Warren Jeffs what he thinks about that.
Don’t know him, but if I did…
@princenuadha:
Let’s keep things in perspective here. We’re talking about human biodiversity, which is about individual and group-level differences. Rarely can we talk about “men” as a monolithic group for which any particular trait applies to all of them, as you seem to be doing:
“For whatever reason men develop strong attachments (maybe because the kids need that and or maybe cause most men won’t have many opportunisties. “
Let’s be clear. Some men do and some men don’t, and some men are in between. More over, different groups vary in their proportion of these different types of men. This is basic HBD.
“Again, the reality is that men take divorce worse and suicide more over it. “
I’m not so sure that’s been clearly demonstrated.
“The reality is that more women end marriage more often, opening up the sex market.”
Quite possibly. It’s unclear why, though. Keep in mind that a woman’s intrinsic value on the mate market decreases as she ages, whereas a man’s may actually increase (as he gains status).
“I’m talking the average man who could have casual sex and walk away but probably wouldn’t.”
The average European man? The average West African man? The average Arabian man? Again, this is HBD here…
“Also polygamy does not imply rape of the ‘other'”
No. Nor does it preclude it.
I get the impression that you are trying to derive a moral foundation from natural facts. Big mistake, nature is amoral…
@Linton Herbert:
“But I’d say that if my best friend, who is not otherwise in a relationship, seduces my wife, then he’s cheating, just as she is.”
If you want to define it that way, then sure. But we’re talking about men and women in relationships, so it’s probably wise to restrict “cheating” to the narrow definition of those in committed relationships who have sex outside the relationship, and not also for those who they are having sex with, unless they are also straying…
@”it’s probably wise to restrict “cheating” to the narrow definition of those in committed relationships who have sex outside the relationship” All right. I can go with that for the sake of argument. Then the statement “men cheat more that women” is at lest tenable. I suppose prostitution is the big factor here. He’s cheating on his wife, but she’s not cheating on her pimp although the fact that it is often illeagal suggests that some think she is cheating society. Otherwise I don’t see it. One would think there were more young men sneaking around with married women than young women sneaking around with married men. Dunno. Could go either way.
There’s another factor here. If the young man is caught by the husband there is the risk of serious bodily harm. To a degree that weighs against the notion that the woman makes a huge investment in reproduction but for the male it’s almost free.
@Linton:
Think Bill Clinton and Monica or Arnold Schwarzenegger and his other baby mama. I’d suspect that many, if not most men who cheat do so with what is effectively a second wife: unattached women, often younger, and often in semi-stable repeat occurrences (like Herman Cain’s mistress). In short, de facto polygyny. One could argue in so doing, these men are depriving other men of women, but that’s different from saying that these women are “cheating”, particularly if there are no other men in their lives.
*@JayMan “that’s different from saying that these women are “cheating”” Sure that happens. I knew a woman who did it. It was a bit of a special case. Her husband was going to be sent to Viet Nam. She struck up an affair with her boss. Sure enough, her husband became an emotional basket case and the military decided he wasn’t fit to serve. Good fellow, really. I liked them both. And the boss was a pawn. Of course there are better cases, as you point out. On the other hand “sleeping with the boss’s wife” used to be a cliche. It was thought to be good for your career. (I am assume the “boss” is a male. Used to be the rule, anyway.) You could well be right on balance. But it would take some numbers to indicate a massive difference.
@jayman
“More over, different groups vary in their proportion of these different types of men. This is basic HBD.”
I know, and the groups I compared were men and women… Which is what this whole post is about.
> I’m not so sure that’s been clearly demonstrated.
Then that would be the question for you.
“The average European man? The average West African man? The average Arabian man? Again, this is HBD here…”
Hbd chick said “men”. She essentially argued that men would rape women more than the reverse, and she explicitly argued that “men” can more easily spread their seed and “hither”.
The problem is that she doesn’t have the support to make such a claim. She does not take into account the psychological investments men make (and the high cost of a failed family… Suicide) but instead focuses only on the physical process of carrying a baby. Not surprisingly she fails to expain their actually behavior.
@princenuadha:
“The problem is that she doesn’t have the support to make such a claim. She does not take into account the psychological investments men make (and the high cost of a failed family… Suicide) but instead focuses only on the physical process of carrying a baby.”
YOU are focusing on this, though, which is really a strawman argument. As been pointed out to you, the cad strategy is as much a viable one for men as is the “dad” strategy, they are not even necessarily mutually exclusive, and various factors can tilt things either way. At the end of the day, the minimum parental investment is the strongest factor influencing the behavior of the sexes, and HBD Chick’s point that as such, men, statistically speaking, should be more favored to employ the strategies she discusses is a valid one, and one that does have the support of historical facts (oh like Genghis Khan), and other evidence (Y-chromosome vs mtDNA).
@princenuadha – “I know, and the groups I compared were men and women… Which is what this whole post is about.”
sorry i haven’t been engaging much in this conversation. it’s really hard working taking it easy. (~_^) takes up more time than you would think!
no, the whole post was most definitely NOT about the differences between men and women. the point of the post was about possible differences in coercive sex in different populations — for example, the outbred english vs. the more inbred pakistanis. why are there gangs of pakistani men “grooming” white english (and black) girls in england and not (afaik) gangs of english men “grooming” pakistani girls? that’s what i was wondering about, and so got to wondering about possible differences in desiring to have sex with “the other” in different populations. the stuff about differences between men and women was just there to set up the argument (i.e. why is is gangs of pakistani men grooming english girls rather than gangs of pakistani women grooming english boys?).
“gangs of pakistani women grooming english boys”
To be fair: if this were happening, we probably wouldn’t be hearing as many complaints.
@princenuadha – “Hbd chick said ‘men’. She essentially argued that men would rape women more than the reverse, and she explicitly argued that ‘men’ can more easily spread their seed and ‘hither’. “
well, men CAN — at least theoretically — have way more kids than women can. or, i guess a better way of putting it is: any given man can, theoretically, have way more kids than any given woman. any given woman is limited to maybe 20-30 pregnancies in her lifetime. if you somehow managed to have twins each of those times, i guess a woman could (naturally) have a max of 60-or-so kids (i wonder what the record is? i think i looked that up once, but i don’t recall it now). for any given man, the possible theoretical number of kids must be — i dunno — in the thousands? (i’m talking about naturally — not using a sperm bank or anything like that.) there is a difference here which you cannot deny.
and i wasn’t saying that men would be more frequent rapists than women. i was saying that i thought it might follow logically that men would more frequently desire sex with unrelated women (“the others”) and that a behavior driving an individual to rape “the other” might be stonger in men than in women (because of the pregnancy issue in women). i’m talking specifically about raping unrelated individuals (“the others”). i could very well believe that women engage in the same amount of coercive sex as men, but like i asked earlier: who do they rape? i’ll betcha a dime — no, a quarter! — that women more frequently rape (or engage in coercive sex with) men more like themselves than men do. robin fox, for instance, in The Tribal Imagination (and, i suppose, in his incest book, but i haven’t read that) mentioned that, in father-daughter incest cases, the majority of those relationships are initiated by the daughter. [<<edit: JUST IGNORE ME!] that’s in line with what i’m saying here.
and the most important point of the post is (or should’ve been): that there might be a difference in the coercive sex drive in different populations, esp. inbred vs. outbred (’cause it might pay more for inbred populations to literally scr*w other populations — particularly comparatively outbred populations).
@hbdchick soto voce “well, men CAN — at least theoretically — have way more kids than women” No question about it. And I hesitate to bring this up. But they say pretty much primates can be divided into two groups: basically promiscuous ones with strong immune systems and basically monogamous ones with puny immune systems. Humans have the puny sort. So one can propose the argument that in the CAD VS DAD contest, the DAD’s have been winning. Otherwise there would be selective pressure for the kind of immune system that would shrug off AIDS, like chimps do. I don’t have the reference, much less a link, but I think it was published in NATURE under some title like “Another Advantage of Promescuity.” Title strikes me as off the mark. I suppose that is because almost everybody agrees entusiastically with the “cast your wild oats to the wind” notion for males. (Welcome back, by the way.)
@redzen – “To be fair: if this were happening, we probably wouldn’t be hearing as many complaints.”
prolly not so much from the boys, no. (~_^) but parents do get worked up about this. female teachers having sex with their teenage male students — that often makes the headlines.
Yeah, I jest. If it had indeed been happening, jealous males would make a fuss, and the media would run spin it as young lordlings exploiting the downtrodden, damaging societal cohesion with their privileged entitlement. I doubt it happens.
“father-daughter incest cases, the majority of those relationships are initiated by the daughter.” This, however, completely explodes my mind. Do you recall Robins source? Forgive my impugning of what might be a valid fact, and daughter-initiated relations doubtless occur; but the description of it happening on such a scale (majority, even!) strikes me as the kind of “daughters want it” idea that a certain species of men would be eager to exaggerate, beyond the reality.
Of course, it might nonetheless be true! Yet I struggle to imagine how such a statistic might reliably be gathered from the painful mess of human record. Contamination by guilt and shame and blame aside…
@hbdchick “Do you recall Robins source? ” I imagine he dealt with it in The Red Lamp of Incest and the reference would be there, but I don’t recall such a passage. I was looking at other things.
@redzen – “Do you recall Robins source?”
no, sorry, i have no recollection, but it stuck in my head ’cause it was so remarkable! it was in The Tribal Imagination, i know, ’cause that’s the only of fox’s books that i’ve read, but like linton says, it must be in his incest book somewhere, too.
i’ll double-check it when i get a chance (when i have a break from my break (~_^) ). remind me if i forget!
@jayman
“At the end of the day, the minimum parental investment is the strongest factor influencing the behavior of the sexes”
And its not that men (IN GENERAL) have less parental investment. Clearly they do and clearly its not a flexible strategy when MEN TAKE DIVORCE WORSE. The pain they have from that encourages investment but it also is likely to discourage productivity after divorce. The latter proves that the investment is “built in” and not just the ever optimal strategy.
Some of what we’re arguing may be down to semantics, but my whole point is that by the personality and sexual strategy, men in general, are about as predisposed to investment in their offspring as women.
“and one that does have the support of historical facts (oh like Genghis Khan)”
Influential man =/= men (or the leanings of men)
I’m talking about men, not the results of men, that by definition, will bias the alphas.
@hbdc
“the stuff about differences between men and women was just there to set up the argument”
Ahhhh, I gotcha!
It’s cause I only saw the bodily (investment) argument, which applies to all men, but not the moderating effects of the psychological (investment) argument which would cause the variation in male populations… Assuming they’re there.
> (i.e. why is is gangs of pakistani men grooming english girls rather than gangs of pakistani women grooming english boys?).
You may be right. I only know of the west which includes surprising rates of women raping and molesting, similar as males do.
“that there might be a difference in the coercive sex drive in different populations, esp. inbred vs. outbred (’cause it might pay more for inbred populations to literally scr*w other populations — particularly comparatively outbred populations).”
I definitely noticed that argument. But, I don’t see why that dynamic would evolve for the reason you gave, ie to outbreed the “others”. All depends on the available resources I guess… Meaning “others” can help you or hurt you in different economic situations. If they hurt you… at least your genes would survive if “they” won while having incorporated your kids.
I don’t know, but deep question. Good post.
Idunno, deep
@princenuadha:
OK, this is getting boring.
A couple of things for you:
“And its not that men (IN GENERAL) have less parental investment. Clearly they do and clearly its not a flexible strategy when MEN TAKE DIVORCE WORSE.”
1. I’m not sure that you’ve demonstrated this.
2. Even if so, these men are select. These are men that are the type to commit in the first place. They have chosen the “dad” strategy. I’m not horribly surprised that these men would be fazed, as opposed to the “cad” men that wouldn’t be so committed in the first place.
“Some of what we’re arguing may be down to semantics”
I don’t think so…
“but my whole point is that by the personality and sexual strategy, men in general, are about as predisposed to investment in their offspring as women.”
…unless your definitions are vastly different from mine (like in “about as predisposed”). You’re positing that, statistically, you’ll find no significant difference between men and women on this point (and presumably, no cross racial differences in such), which is patently false.
At this point, you just seem to be recycling the same silly and nonsensical points. I’m not going to bother much further with this discussion.
@princenuadha – “I don’t see why that dynamic would evolve for the reason you gave, ie to outbreed the ‘others’. All depends on the available resources I guess… Meaning ‘others’ can help you or hurt you in different economic situations.”
well, i was trying to view this coercive mating business from an inclusive fitness angle, you see. same as corruption and nepotism in inbred societies.
if — if — you get a genetic payoff from helping out nieces & nephews, etc. AND if that payoff is greater in inbred societies (which i think it must be — that’s been the meta-theme of this blog for a while (~_^) ), THEN it may be that there would be a greater genetic payoff also for scr*wing an unrelated clan’s women in inclusive fitness terms. ’cause you 1) limit the amount of genes the other guy gets to spread — both his very own genes AND the genes that the women in his clan have — and 2) you get to spread your own genes more.
i had an idea that this might be another example of the “dark side” of altruism — like honor killings. it might also explain the “pepe le pew” type behaviors of men from slightly inbred populations. and, if it applies at all, it would necessarily apply less to outbred populations.
@hbd chick “. if — if — you get a genetic payoff from helping out nieces & nephews, etc. AND if that payoff is greater in inbred societies (which i think it must be — that’s been the meta-theme of this blog for a while (~_^) ),” And an amazing meta-theme it has been. So much to think about. So much data I have never seen before.
I think this might be relevant if a bit long:
We have been learning about societies with differing degrees of customary consanguinity, the social and biological causes and effects. There are some biological facts that might be of interest.
There is an antigen called Rh, if you have it on your red cells you are Rh positive, otherwise negative. Positive is a pure Mendelian dominant. The negative allele is less common worldwide. It, if memory serves, is most common in Europe, the Mid East and Africa. In eastern Asia and among Native Americans it is very rare. There was an article about gene distribution many years ago in Scientific American, maybe by Svante Pääbo, that included a map of the distribution of the negative allele in the Eastern Hemisphere.
The allele is important because, in the absence of modern medicine, if a woman who is Rh negative has a child that is Rh positive, her body will react to the antigen. The first baby is generally fine, but with subsequent Rh positive pregnancies, the maternal immune system is primed and the antibodies can reach the fetal blood. This destroys fetal red cells, but if the attack is not too bad, the fetus survives and the released hemoglobin is cleared by the mother’s circulation. After birth, however, maternal antibodies continue to break up the baby’s red cells. The hemoglobin levels rise until they damage the newborn brain. With repeated pregnancies anemia from the loss of fetal red cells throws the fetus into congestive heart failure – hydrops fetalis. The fetus or newborn may die. If the condition is severe enough the fetus may get stuck in the birth canal and the mother will die. Here is a link if you want the story in a little more detail. (http://nobabies.net/Open%20letter%20to%20Nathaniel%20Comfort%20again.html) Around the middle of the 20th century the process became understood, and now it is effectively controlled, provided one has modern health care.
It is now accepted that optimal fertility comes from marrying a third cousin. (http://io9.com/5863666/why-inbreeding-really-isnt-as-bad-as-you-think-it-is) That is oversimplifying it, but let’s go with it. So there are different biological outcomes one may expect with different degrees of habitual consanguinity. 1) Intense inbreeding: the population dies. 2) Roughly first cousin marriages: fertility is low. The value placed on the life of near kin is high. 3) Roughly third cousin marriages: high fertility. Value placed on life is low, for instance honor may be more important than life. 4) Roughly fifth cousin marriages: low fertility. Value placed on life of members of the broader community is high. 5) Roughly seventh cousin and higher marriages: fertility fails, an extraordinary value is placed on the lives of all humans, the population dies.
Now into that already harrowing mix, toss the Rh gene. If everyone is positive or everyone is negative the gene is totally benign. If the alleles are mixed, then there are going to be some brain damaged and some dead babies. There are three strategies. (We can ignore 1) and 5) above as they are doomed anyway. The first cousin strategy 2) minimizes the number of mismatched couples: cousins are more likely to have the same allele. For this reason, presumably, when Charles Darwin’s son looked into the question of whether inbreeding caused insanity he found the opposite. Cousins who married were less likely to have brain damaged children. The third cousin strategy 3) maximizes fertility but at the cost of losing a lot of young mothers. That cost is so terrible that basically it’s very rare or a non starter unless you understand the rules or have modern medicine. The fifth cousin strategy 4) has much to be said for it. Fertility is adequate but low enough so as not to lose mothers and and allows for a larger pool of valued lives. The difficulty is that it is hard to set up and maintain.
The facts are clear enough. That last paragraph and the issue of what value is placed on life are my own interpretation and of course could be dead wrong. What does everybody think?
@Chickadee: I’ll likewise post if I find it.
“it might also explain the “pepe le pew” type behaviors”
bahahahaha
Wikipedia’s article on interfaith marriages has this to say:
“Islamic Law has different regulations on interfaith marriage, depending on which of the two spouses is Muslim. A primary legal concern is that the children are assured to all be Muslim. Islamic Law permits a Muslim man to marry up to four non-Muslim women from the People of the Book (that is, Christians and Jews) however they must be chaste and all of the children must be brought up Muslim. However Muslim women are prohibited by Islamic Law from marrying outside of Islam. [18][19][20][21]
[…]
“Islam generally forbids Muslim women from marrying non-Muslim men. This prohibition serves to preserve and expand the Islamic faith within societies which are patriarchal but multi-faith. It effectively ensures that over many generations, Islam would naturally gain in adherents, relative to neighbouring religions, through its ability to secure the adherence of all offspring from mixed marriages.[22] If a non-Muslim woman is married to a non-Muslim, and she converts to Islam, the marriage is suspended until her husband converts to Islam, and she could in theory leave the non-Muslim husband and marry a Muslim one (analogous to the Pauline privilege among Catholics).”
That’s a revealing set of priorities there. However, it is not necessarily true, as you guessed above, that women have less inclination to breed out. It could be a case, as we see in Islam, that the men have imposed rules which make it legally or socially impossible (honor killings, etc) to breed out, since men correctly realize that women are far more reproductively valuable and men are under far greater threat of reproductive success from foreign competition.
@linton – “It is now accepted that optimal fertility comes from marrying a third cousin. (http://io9.com/5863666/why-inbreeding-really-isnt-as-bad-as-you-think-it-is) That is oversimplifying it, but let’s go with it. So there are different biological outcomes one may expect with different degrees of habitual consanguinity. 1) Intense inbreeding: the population dies. 2) Roughly first cousin marriages: fertility is low. The value placed on the life of near kin is high. 3) Roughly third cousin marriages: high fertility. Value placed on life is low, for instance honor may be more important than life. 4) Roughly fifth cousin marriages: low fertility. Value placed on life of members of the broader community is high. 5) Roughly seventh cousin and higher marriages: fertility fails, an extraordinary value is placed on the lives of all humans, the population dies.”
i like this summary. not sure if it’s entirely correct (haven’t thought about it for very long, yet), but i like it!
@linton – “For this reason, presumably, when Charles Darwin’s son looked into the question of whether inbreeding caused insanity he found the opposite. Cousins who married were less likely to have brain damaged children.”
aaaaaaaahhhhhh! you could be on to something there!
@hbd chick “aaaaaaaahhhhhh! you could be on to something there” Thanks. I do my best. But it would never have crossed my mind without your tireless efforts.
@bleach – “It could be a case, as we see in Islam, that the men have imposed rules which make it legally or socially impossible (honor killings, etc) to breed out, since men correctly realize that women are far more reproductively valuable and men are under far greater threat of reproductive success from foreign competition.”
could very well be!
still, if this imposition was in place for many, many (muy, muy!) generations, one could wind up with a bunch of women who weren’t very inclined to mate out. (could.)
@hbd chick “one could wind up with a bunch of women who weren’t very inclined to mate out. (could.)” (Tounge in cheek) Well yes. But when did women ever follow the logical path?
@linton – “But when did women ever follow the logical path?”
heh! true. very true. (^_^)
i was actually thinking more along the lines of selection for women who behaved themselves though — talkin’ about the evolution of certain behavioral patterns, in other words.
@hbd chick “talkin’ about the evolution of certain behavioral patterns, in other words” Good point. Like a lot of people I think or evolution in terms of genes. Right genes, right adaptation. But that takes a l-o-o-o-g time, maybe longer than the socicietal structures we have been learning about BUT maybe (soto voce) it isn’t just genes. Maybe the biodiviersity to a significant degree is due to epigenetic changes. They seem (s’far as I can tell) to be able to change over a period of just a few generations, maybe 3 generations to reverse complelely some effect. If it turns out to be a good strategy, then in time the genes will fall into line. Look, I’m blue skying it here, so it you don’t like it, don’t worry about it. Anyway, yes, it does make sense that an adaptive change, like don’t fall in love with utter strangers, might get some sort of biological boost. Might get reinforced by epigenetic and ultimately geneitic predispositions. That makes sense but (with all due modesty in addressing an entity that can create life) I don’t see it happening . Rather the contrary. And that leads in the general direction (We’re toast. Nature wants us gone.) I’d really rather not think about.
@redzen – “I’ll likewise post if I find it.”
#$%^!! now i can’t find it. aargh. and i’m starting to think that i hallucinated it (but i’m pretty sure that i didn’t … pretty sure).
been trying to find the reference by doing word searches in The Tribal Imagination on google books, but with no luck. i’ll have to get the hard-copy down off the shelf. i’m gonna find this reference if it kills me! (~_^)
Haha… I literally did the same thing on google books.
FWIW, if you do find it, you’ll blow my mind, and I’ll share the statistic in conversations and debates for years. It’s it’s a fact, it’s a damn significant fact.
@princenuadha:
“Maybe the above is why men initiate less divorces than women and take divorce worse. Men appear to be more commited, at least in modern times.”
To be fair to this point, see this:
Is the Pill Responsible for the Rising Divorce Rate? | E pur si muove | Big Think
I’m not convinced by the test he talks about, though. Women who use the pill may be systematically different from those who don’t, so I don’t think that’s a fair test. Still, interesting idea, nonetheless…
Here you go:
Gates of Vienna: Feminism and Defeated Tribes
Re: women rape men as often as men rape women
I’m surprised this absurd claim hasn’t been challenged (if it hasn’t been — I only read the first half of the comments). The referenced survey by the Center for Disease Control shows that 1 in 72 males experience rape in their lifetimes and that most of the perpetrators are other males. Roughly one quarter of females experience rape, mostly by males. QED
@luke – “The referenced survey by the Center for Disease Control shows that 1 in 72 males experience rape in their lifetimes and that most of the perpetrators are other males. Roughly one quarter of females experience rape, mostly by males. QED”
thanks! (^_^)
@jayman – “‘”It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl,” says Hamid, a young Muslim man in an interview about one of many gang rapes in Sweden involving immigrant perps and a native white girl.'”
yeah. that’s an example of how clannish/tribal peoples often have separate moralities for the in-group and any out-groups. macdonald talked about this wrt gypsies in a very insightful discussion (something i’ve got to re-find).
@jayman – “If we notice this pattern then it is very easy to see that it is present in many Western cities today, with immigrant men from certain communities, Muslims and Africans being among the most aggressive, preying on local white women. They instinctively see this as conquering a new territory….“
yup. which is what they are doing, no?
They instinctively see this as conquering a new territory….
yup. which is what they are doing, no?”
@jayman and HBDC: And the subjected peoples equally instinctively know it! Adoption of evolutionarily new behaviors is enhanced in NWE’s, and one of those is the mindboggling willingness to ignore every instinct screaming that foreigners are marauding the women of the tribe, for the sake of… whatever we think we’re doing.
Viewed from the perspective of an alien scientist, this is simply a case in point of why willingness to act counter to the screams of instinct is rare. Instinct keeps you from the fate of Steve Irwin.
@redzengenoist:
“Adoption of evolutionarily new behaviors is enhanced in NWE’s, and one of those is the mindboggling willingness to ignore every instinct screaming that foreigners are marauding the women of the tribe, for the sake of… whatever we think we’re doing.”
This brings to mind Satoshi Kanazawa’s Savanna Hypothesis. The traits and behaviors he describes as being correlated with intelligence also, for the most part, seem to be captured by the personality dimension openness to experience (which is the only one of the Big Five traits correlated with IQ). Since a lot of the data he uses to support his hypothesis comes from places that are populated primarily by NW Euros, one has to wonder how much of his observed association is simply the result of the quirks that NW Euros posses, including their anomalously high average IQ. In other words, does the association between IQ and “evolutionary novelty” still work if you look at populations other than NW Euros (and are not “contaminated” by NW Euro admixture, as most non-Whites in the US are)?
“1. I’m not sure that you’ve demonstrated this.”
? I don’t know if you’re complaint is about the reasoning or the citation. The evidence I used can easily be googled… The reasoning is simple. Men are less likely to initiate divorce which suggests they they are behaviorally invested in marriage, maybe more than women. The fact that men take divorce worse, consequently lowering their reproductive fitness, shows that the male inclination to commitment is NOT situational. You even said that men are genetically predisposed towards their reproductive behavior, and if most men invest in shared bonds…
> They have chosen the “dad” strategy. I’m not horribly surprised that these men would be fazed, as opposed to the “cad” men that wouldn’t be so committed in the first place.
Ok, so what are we comparing then? I used marriage as a proxy for the behavior of men and women (I know its not perfect) but remember that women chose marriage too. You can talk about non married absent fathers just as I could talk about non married welfare mothers who get a free ride (low investment)… We won’t get far.
“You’re positing that, statistically, you’ll find no significant difference between men and women on this point (and presumably, no cross racial differences in such), which is patently false.”
Red herring.
“At this point, you just seem to be recycling the same silly and nonsensical points. I’m not going to bother much further with this discussion.”
Don’t be rude. There have been quite a few points where you were slow to follow logic, or made irrelevant points. I didn’t make it personal…
@hbd chick
“THEN it may be that there would be a greater genetic payoff also for scr*wing an unrelated clan’s women in inclusive fitness terms. ’cause you 1) limit the amount of genes the other guy gets to spread — both his very own genes AND the genes that the women in his clan have —and…”
I think that is a poor assumption.
@bleach
“Women don’t rape because, even aside from being weaker than men, THEY have to carry the resulting child to term– while the enemy tribesman who is raped can just run off and sire50 more kids while she is pregnant.”
I just showed evidence that women raped men over a 12 month period as frequently as the reverse (note that stranger rape is a minority of rape).
Women will also try to trick unwilling husbands, boyfriends, and even one night stands into becoming a father by lying about the pill or even taking a used condom. In other words, women will try to get pregnant from men who have no interest in doing so.
What hbd ppl need to know is that traits that are selected for don’t have to be optimal for survival in every situation. A guy who loves his wife might fall into depression after she left him, passing up many potentials. A woman might be horny or baby hungry and have sex (forced) regardless of the fitness of the offspring. However, keep in mind that many promiscuous women have succeeded in spreading their genes…
@princenuadha – “I think that is a poor assumption.”
ok.
Lol, I assume that was sarcastic. But much of this paper was based off that assumption which shouldn’t be taken for granted.
@princenuadha – “Lol, I assume that was sarcastic.”
heh. well, not so much sarcasm as just … well … you didn’t give me much to work off:
“I think that is a poor assumption.”
that’s not an argument, it’s just contradiction. (~_^) but obviously you’re entitled to think that assumption i made is poor — and it very well may be — so … ok!
@princenuadha – “But much of this paper was based off that assumption which shouldn’t be taken for granted.”
of course not. i never said it should be. in fact, i said in the post a couple of times that these were “vague ideas” that i had — not that they were any sort of confirmed facts.
(and just to be clear — paper? this is a blog post — i haven’t published any of this anywhere.)
OK, fair enough.
But there is this (http://chronicle.com/article/In-Defense-of-Favoritism/135610/) which you linked to : )
Sooooo, there doesn’t need to be racism for you to get the white guy. He’ll choose you based on favoritism. You know that’s what motivates you!!!
@princenuadha – “Sooooo, there doesn’t need to be racism for you to get the white guy. He’ll choose you based on favoritism.”
i don’t see that “racism” (or “ethnicity-ism”) is much different from “favoritism” — in all of those cases, one is favoring someone most like onself (genetically) over someone else who is less like oneself (genetically).
@princenuadha – “You know that’s what motivates you!!!
oh, i’m a little clannish creature! i favor my extended-family members over all others. (~_^)
@princenuadha – “which you linked to”
i should clarify that just ’cause i link to something doesn’t mean that i agree 100% with it. i might not even agree with it at all! — but just find it interesting somehow.
@redzen – “Adoption of evolutionarily new behaviors is enhanced in NWE’s, and one of those is the mindboggling willingness to ignore every instinct screaming that foreigners are marauding the women of the tribe, for the sake of… whatever we think we’re doing.
“Viewed from the perspective of an alien scientist, this is simply a case in point of why willingness to act counter to the screams of instinct is rare.”
well, i keep thinking that this is all just the oubreeding/selection for reciprocally altruistic people gone wrong when confronted with inbred/familial altruistic populations.
to be individualistic, universalistic, oriented towards the commonweal is (was?) the strength of nw europeans. and it works great! — as long as the environment doesn’t change — i.e. you add in a whole load of people who are not universalistic, etc., etc.
the strength of nw europeans may turn out to be their achilles’ heel. =/ (and these behaviors will just be de-selected for as greg cochran once said somewhere or other….)
@jayman – “In other words, does the association between IQ and ‘evolutionary novelty’ still work if you look at populations other than NW Euros (and are not ‘contaminated’ by NW Euro admixture, as most non-Whites in the US are)?”
aaaaaah! interesting thoughts.
the strength of nw europeans may turn out to be their achilles’ heel. =/ (and these behaviors will just be de-selected for as greg cochran once said somewhere or other….)
Right, it’s an achilles’ heel in this particular environment, where I sort of feel that we’ve been deliberately duped (over the course of a century or so) to believe that the “good thing” to do is to ignore the tribalism instincts. But had WWII gone differently, I think the same genotypes would have yielded a very different phenotype. What’s more, I think that this is the most stabile phenotype, the present situation is very unusual, dependent upon the history of WWII.
I’ve said this before, but I think this blog is on the winning side of history. Genomic data will yield very specific data on the heritability of IQ and personality traits at an exponential rate in the next few decades, and I think the currently unborn generation are going to grow up learning about HBD in about the same sense as American kids today grow up learning about evolution: an optional belief for the lower classes, but a pervasive belief in the intelligentsia, and without the stench of risk it has now.
*
@jayman – “In other words, does the association between IQ and ‘evolutionary novelty’ still work if you look at populations other than NW Euros (and are not ‘contaminated’ by NW Euro admixture, as most non-Whites in the US are)?”
Holy cow! Testable hypothesis, awesome idea Jayman!
*googling*
Dammit, why are there not any good Chinese datasets out there!? I need to make one myself…
“Genomic data will yield very specific data on the heritability of IQ and personality traits at an exponential rate in the next few decades, and I think the currently unborn generation are going to grow up learning about HBD in about the same sense as American kids today grow up learning about evolution: an optional belief for the lower classes, but a pervasive belief in the intelligentsia, and without the stench of risk it has now.”
I have been trying to force the issue, so to speak. Indeed, that’s the primary goal of my blog. I think if that is to come about, that we’re in for a major reckoning on that matter first (as is often the case with paradigm shifts)—on top of the reckoning we’re in for on other things, at least.
I have a quite a few lefty-liberal White friends, many of which, despite being brilliant, aren’t quite on board with heritable differences between people. Occasionally there’s things I’ll put out there to shake things up, like this piece on “liberal creationism” that was written shortly after the Watson fiasco.
I will say that, as a person of color, I much prefer having liberal NW Euro friends as opposed to other Whites and people of other groups. One cannot argue much with the degree of acceptance you get here, that you don’t necessarily get elsewhere. The problem of course comes in when people who are inclined to abuse that trust come into the picture…
@Jayman “One cannot argue much with the degree of acceptance you get here, that you don’t necessarily get elsewhere. The problem of course comes in when people who are inclined to abuse that trust come into the picture…” Your analysis is as usual astute. Forgive me for a sour note here, but don’t forget this is people we are talking about. People can turn on you in a heartbeat. Years ago I read a report from the Balkans. The interviewer was chatting with a man who was crouching behind a stone wall taking potshots at his neighbor. Until the year before they had been good friends, for instance sharing holiday celebrations. So do please maintain normal prudence. You are needed.
@redzen – “Right, it’s an achilles’ heel in this particular environment, where I sort of feel that we’ve been deliberately duped (over the course of a century or so) to believe that the ‘good thing’ to do is to ignore the tribalism instincts. But had WWII gone differently, I think the same genotypes would have yielded a very different phenotype.”
yeah. i think the underlying thread for nw europeans — my “core” europeans — for a long time now has been universalism. plays out in different ways, though. once-upon-a-time it was the “white man’s burden” — go out and help (whilst enjoying the spoils of conquering, of course) all those others — bring them christianity, etc., etc. — but don’t invite them home! nowadays it’s this ridiculous “everybody’s just the same so it’s o.k. to shuffle everybody about” idea.
memes are important. but i don’t think you could sell a non-universalist meme to nw europeans. maybe if everything goes to h*ll, but not before then i think.
@hbdchick “memes are important. but i don’t think you could sell a non-universalist meme to nw europeans.” On the weight of my own experience I say you are absolutley right.
@jayman – “I will say that, as a person of color, I much prefer having liberal NW Euro friends as opposed to other Whites….”
hey! some of us clannish whites are ok! (~_^) (aren’t we…?)
i do know what you mean, though. my people drive me nuts with their clannish behaviors — trying to cheat the taxman all the time, pinching things here and there — not huge thefts, just little things (you wouldn’t want to leave your bicycle unlocked in the village where my family comes from!). nepotism up to your ears. no wonder nothing works back there! much better to live amongst the anglos. (^_^)
Looks like some of our well-behaved NW Euros are fixin’ to fight back:
Amsterdam to create ‘scum villages’
That, BTW, was a concept in a Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode
@jayman – “Looks like some of our well-behaved NW Euros are fixin’ to fight back.”
i saw that headline! — but i didn’t read the story. guess maybe even the dutch are getting fed up, huh?
@jayman – “That, BTW, was a concept in a Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode.”
another btw — i’ve decided upon my new year’s resolution for 2013. like most people, i never manage to keep my resolutions, so i thought i’d go for something easy/enjoyable next year: sit down and watch, from the beginning, all the new star trek series. (^_^) i’ve seen a whole bunch of episodes over the years, of course, but i never started following it from the beginning — so, on jan 1st i’ll be sitting down to the first few episodes of tng. (^_^) (must remember to buy the dvds….)
[…] Five scale. It finds that, among both sexes, the Big Five dimension of openness to experience, the hallmark of liberal-minded people, is strongly negatively correlated with fertility. Among women, conscientiousness is also strongly […]