130 comments on “No Con Artist Wants A Solution

  1. That was the most accurate post on the Manosphere that I have read to date. If these so called “alphas” (LOL) truly wanted to fight feminism, they wouldn’t be wasting their energy trying seduce unattainable women but doing the same thing that the feminists used to advance their agenda- going on TV, organizing protests, writing and lobbying politicians trying to rollback the laws that feminists have gotten passed over the past 50 years, etc. They should just get off their asses or GTOW. That’s why I’m done with them. Most of the Manospherians and their manipulative useful idiot female allies just want to get attention because they haven’t accomplished much in their lives want to delude themselves into thinking they’re actually doing something important.

    • doing the same thing that the feminists used to advance their agenda- going on TV, organizing protests, writing and lobbying politicians trying to rollback the laws that feminists have gotten passed over the past 50 years, etc.

      The problem is that unless you are a millionaire you are going to need a job, and I don’t want to end up on those “blacklists.” I work for a large company, the owners of which have donated large sums to the Democrats. Besides, even if that was done, the government would just suppress it. The reality is that by the time feminists started protesting(60s and 70s), they had already largely won the war in the intellectual sphere, most of the academia supported them. The real war was fought, and won, between 1920 and 1960, with the triumph of social determinism and cultural anthropology in academia.

  2. BP,

    The solution has always been within us to find a natural equilibrium to the true nature of the world we live in. Suffice to say, we live in a world where men cannot forfeit their desires to find peace and equilibrium with the harsh truth of this world. The solution is very simple…the opposite of love and desire is not hate and consternation..it is apathy. It’s easier said than done considering just how vapidly inbuilt it is in our biology, often I’d like to think it is a once-noble attribute which has been corrupted to be a very exploitable weakness among men. My hope is in the redeeming qualities in men, that they will be of a rational and resolute mind to overcome such a weakness. I’ve lived, breathed, and will continue to sermonize for GYOW.

  3. According to you the solution is to “give up on women.” LOL. Men are products of evolution, they will chase pussy to the ends of the earth, even if game were a big scam that didn’t work, they would try everything they could get their hands on, they would even take dating advice from feminists. Few would ever voluntarily embrace celibacy. You said in your old blog that you “tried everything” and even hit on “the bottom of the barrel,” but even they didn’t want you? What exactly is wrong with you? Are you autistic? I am slightly autistic, so I know what that’s like. I’m what Roissy would call a Beta Male, I understand “alphaness” in theory but I can never put it into practice consistently. My current gf is a Hispanic, about a 5 or a 6, but her personality is horrible. She’s everything you can hate about a woman. It’s still better than being single, though. I don’t see what you have against Roissy, his view of the world seems to be match pretty closely what I have seen.

    • Men “chasing pussy to the ends of the earth” != evolution.

      That’s more like the Feminine Mystique v2. If said behavior is so ingrained, “Game” wouldn’t even be needed.

      Humans are now thought to have evolved in extended families, clans, and tribes of ~50-150 people (Dunbar’s number). With a life expectancy of maybe 25-30 years, there were at most half a dozen kids hitting puberty every year, three boys and three girls on average. They had likely known each other all their lives. While there might have been simple preferences (“I don’t like Sally, but Judy is ok…), boys and girls were likely just paired off by the adults in something resembling arranged marriages. There was never a population of nubile females running around free which required chasing.

      Reality is more host/parasite than predator/prey.

      Current human mating environments in the so-called civilized world, like nightclubs, more nearly resemble a lek (ornithology) in many ways, where it’s more the girls chasing the boys. Old adage: A woman chases a man until she lets him catch her.

      The current environment is novel and distinctly unnatural, so it’s not exactly clear what or how any supposedly innate characteristic(s) might have to do with behavior now, even if you got the characteristic correct.

      • If said behavior is so ingrained, “Game” wouldn’t even be needed.

        Disagree with you there. Physical strength is certainly needed for success in the natural world, yet people have a large range of physical strengths and this is substantially heritable. Good looks in women is another category where there is substantial variation but is nonetheless has substantial heritability. I do, however, think that the current sexual environment is highly unnatural, and that is what has led to the preponderance of beta males. In ancient times “game” was much simpler because the genders were more equal in value.

        With a life expectancy of maybe 25-30 years, there were at most half a dozen kids hitting puberty every year, three boys and three girls on average. They had likely known each other all their lives. While there might have been simple preferences (“I don’t like Sally, but Judy is ok…), boys and girls were likely just paired off by the adults in something resembling arranged marriages. There was never a population of nubile females running around free which required chasing.

        Anthropologists tell a different story. Every primitive society in the tropics reports substantial polygamy and large percentage(20%) of the men dying violent deaths, as well as different age relationships. Among Eurasian hunter gatherers of the recent past, there is less but still a substantial amount of this. This has been shown in ancient remains where DNA has been recovered, there is much more variation in the YDNA than there is in the mtDNA, signalling that the ancients descend from a large number of women and a smaller number of men.

        Current human mating environments in the so-called civilized world, like nightclubs, more nearly resemble a lek (ornithology) in many ways, where it’s more the girls chasing the boys. Old adage: A woman chases a man until she lets him catch her.

        Yes, but remember that the girls are only chasing men of higher SMV than them. An about average women could easily get an about average man. The closest thing to “equality” in this regard can be found among conservative populations such as the orthodox Jews or the Amish.

      • That’s whats so funny. Men never evolved to chase women, and women never evolved to be super-selective because women almost never did the selecting. Parents did it for them or the strongest male just took what he wanted. Female choice was always, by necessity, the lesser factor, especially so the further back you go. It explains why women rely on social cues and non-sexual factors for mate selection far more than men.

        Game serves as a vehicle for modern myths, not science.

        In the modern world studies show women like men with more feminine faces, and not just when they’re not ovulating. Heh. Go figure.

        What a mess Game is. It gets everything so wrong. Poor Game, if you assume its about reality. But if you understand as the creating of a new myth that gives hordes of disaffected young men meaning in their lives, it is very, very successful and will never be eradicated by reason. And why would you want to take it away from these guys?

        The more I understand Game the less I feel compelled to try and eradicate it. I am against in general depriving people of religious consolations and I am beginning to think its a mistake to see Game in rationalistic terms. Its not really trying to be a science even tho it presents itself in scientific language. In reality most guys who are into game never really put these “alpha” principles into practice and remain as normal/abnormal as they always were, but have a new religion that makes them feel better. The few guys who treat game as a science and a model of reality and put these retarded alpha principles into real practice get burned hard and quickly and usually become fierce anti-game warriors like AlekNovy. Alek was quite right when he used to say most gamers are basement dwellers who never actually put game into practice and ironically it’s only the guys who take game seriously and really try who see how retarded it is, but he failed to draw the right conclusions from this; that for most guys, game isn’t fulfilling the need for a model of reality or a way to pick up girls, but a need for myth and meaning. The Fifth Horseman used to say that he refused to discuss game with anyone who refused to accept that it worked. He said this without irony. Isn’t that sufficiently clear that you are dealing with a Church Father? At a certain point you have to lay off and leave each man to his faith.

        You can only create a counter religion to replace game. It fills a vacuum in the heart not the head. Most of the gamers never hit on women. The late Hellensitic world produced things like Stoicism and Epicureanism and Cynism which at least were quite rational. But they also had dark Mystery Religions like Orphism. Early 21st century myths and religions are things like Game, liberalism, humanism, feminism, progress, etc.

        Humans need this kind of thing to feel happy.

        • Are you the same George who used to be around before during the peak of the anti-game debates? If so, glad you came back for a spell. Your insights have been missed.

        • Most “Game” doesn’t serve the guys who don’t have the looks to carry it off.

          In that case, they will need to just not be chumps (don’t give favours for free) and be an absolute slob in the sense of “asking for sex as payment” – the sexual barter system.

          Over the internet, do it by saying, If I do this for you I get a blowjob LOL (the LOL is important – if she loses her cool you don’t give her the favour … and even if she doesn’t you only work halfway until you get the BJ) …
          and in person say “I do something for you, you owe me sex”.

          Of course, the downside to this is she might “socially murder” you – in extreme cases, even tell whiteknights you raped her to get you killed.

          But …
          you need to record these interactions.

          One of the only salvations for regular/ugly guys now, is the ability to record things and put them on youtube.

          In a very real sense, most guys are playing a con game:
          Be milquetoast, and subsidise a shrew after your “spotless record since you are supposed to be asexual” gets you the corporate job,
          or get going doing something technical or manual that is specialised, which ensures you never answer to an employer, thus making social shaming ineffective.

          As an aside, it’s interesting how almost all the nudie and girly magazines worldwide have folded, with the exception of “The Picture” (Australia)

    • Men are products of evolution

      You may be a lemming. I am not.

      My current gf is a Hispanic, about a 5 or a 6, but her personality is horrible. She’s everything you can hate about a woman.

      So you’re miserable, but you don’t do anything about it because EVOLUTION! On the other hand, I am a human being capable of conscious choice. I am not a slave to evolution. You may not be evolved enough to understand that.

      • For him, EVOLUTION is not an explanation for observed phenomena but a prescription for how to act and a symbol of religious belief.

        So evolution, which began as science and was used to attack religion, is now being used as the basis for the ethical and religious life (religious in the sense that these men seek meaning in EVOLUTION. It’s no longer a neutral, necessarily mute explanatory principle), in one of the funnier world-historical ironies and transformations, and is now EVOLUTION.

        Roosh used to claim he was fulfilling the dictates of EVOLUTION by chasing women, that men exist merely to fulfill the goals of EVOLUTION, and similar things. It is basically religious/meaning/ethical language rather than scientific/explanatory/neutral language and his readers ate that stuff up. They loved it because they craved meaning in their lives.

        Game fills a need of the heart and not the head. Just as religion feels a need of the heart and is not just an inadequate science as Frazer in the 19th century thought. It might seem as if religion was successfully defeated by science and reason, but not before secular society took over many of the myths of Christianity like progress, eschatology, and the divinization of humanity.

        • And they don’t even realize that they are failures to their religion. None of these guys are reproducing, and reproducing is a critical part of evolution.

          They have created a religion around evolution while ignoring the science of evolution.

  4. Except MGTOW pro-offers a choice to every man. They don’t necessarily preclude that men necessarily must be shamed into continuing to chase tail. I’m sure that the vast majority of men if not all men want some tail. The question isn’t that at all. The question is can they overcome that desire? Should they or should they not is not left to you to decide for them, nor should you guilt trip them into. So you have a girlfriend, well I wish you well in that endeavor, but I also am not going to shame you into breaking it off from her, as you want to shame men into not giving up on women. Let them decide for themselves and whatever conclusion they draw, let them say their peace. I think we owe it to men to give them a fair option and to speak candidly about both Game and GYOW and letting them decide on the merits alone. You’re basically using the same shaming techniques a feminist uses and using the same old rehashed evo-pscyh arguments as they do. Suffice to say that evolution also gives men the ability to adapt to their surroundings, insofar as we have also been given free will. When using the tunnel-vision of what you see now, you clearly disregard that which remains unseen in the untapped potential of what men can do in order to survive. Marriage rates are plummeting, which may not mean much in terms of men going after women, but it is a very strong start. Do I personally want this? Absolutely not. But I also don’t want to see men enslaved and if the price of freedom is costly, then so be it. The things that are worth it are worth fighting hard for.

    • I don’t support “shaming” men into chasing women, I don’t support shaming them for doing it either, as BP seems to be doing. Feminists use “evo-pshych” tactics? They hardly ever do that, they are all about social constructivism and cultural anthropology. I think human nature is to a large extent innate, culture and economics can affect it, but cannot transform it. It will always be recognizable. I think voluntary celibacy can be a solution for a small portion of men, there have always been some apparently non-homosexual men who have done it, most notably the priests and monks in the middle ages, continuing down into today.

      • You are a shameless pussy beggar.

        I choose not to go after women. I can get low quality females if I wanted too.

        I don’t tolerate the low mental hygiene of female’s. You assume everyone is like you.

        You are a dishonest cunt. BP has never shamed men for wanting women.

        • You are a shameless pussy beggar.

          I choose not to go after women. I can get low quality females if I wanted too.

          I don’t tolerate the low mental hygiene of female’s.

          I may be a pussy beggar, and I certainly have no shame in it. I don’t particularly like my girlfriend but I have experienced periods of involuntary celibacy and it’s not fun at all. Maybe it’s fun for you.

          You assume everyone is like you.

          I just said:

          ” I think voluntary celibacy can be a solution for a small portion of men, there have always been some apparently non-homosexual men who have done it, most notably the priests and monks in the middle ages, continuing down into today.”

          You are a dishonest cunt. BP has never shamed men for wanting women.

          He has shamed them for acting on that want, just as you do. I have no shame in doing what nearly all men do and what men have evolved to do, that is, beg a woman for pussy. Lesbian feminists actually make a similar argument, that men are so_horrible that the only solution is to abstain from having sex with them, and they use similar shaming tactics on heterosexual women.

  5. tamerlame wrote:

    You are a shameless pussy beggar.

    you responded:

    I may be a pussy beggar, and I certainly have no shame in it.

    Um, I’m pretty sure “having no shame” in something is the literal definition of shameless, genius. Great rebuttal there.

    • I wasn’t trying to “rebut” his point. I may be a pussy beggar(though I try to make it less obvious in real life), and a certainly am not ashamed of it.

      • You are a lying cunt. Game is bullshit calling it bullshit is not shaming men for wanting pussy.

        You tolerate a bitch to get pussy. Pussy is not worth going through drama for. Get a hooker if your sex drive is that high.

      • In another post you claim I shame men for going after pussy. You are a fucking lying weasel.

        I just call bullshit on pussy begging. You offer the false dichotomy of pussy begging or going without. You can have self respect and get pussy, you can pussy beg and go without.

        Also if I had to choose between pussy and self respect I would go without pussy.

        I have gone through dry spells for years. Durring these dry spells I have turned down low quality women.

        Going without is a choice.

  6. But what are your solutions? The only thing you might do is revert the factors that changed the sexual market in the last fifty years and that are currently operating in the West (ie: contraceptives, women economically independent, no-fault divorce, etc). Which is unfeasible.

    According to Mr. “Paragon” (aka “SymmetryBreaker”), surely the best commentator of all times on the manosphere, and unfortunately defunct currently:

    “There are only two quantities of value females consider in mate choice, genetic benefits (indicated in physical attractiveness), and direct benefits (indicated in investment strategies with respect to material resources, and paternal investment)

    “I think it is rather obvious that negative assortative mating prevails within the single demographic (which is the relevant context, after all), and is rather trivial to suppose, if not observe (ie. in any bar/nightclub sample, or online dating sample, where we can see a patently narrow trait-range of males, monopolizing a broad trait-range of females of all morphologies and phenotypes). The fact that females are the (reproductively) rate-limiting sex has always manifested in their higher selectivity (DNA analysis shows that only 40% of an ancestral male population was reproductively successful, compared with some 80% of females).”

    “This dynamic changed, briefly, when ascendant populations became organized around efficient systems of social monogamy, which encouraged male co-operation, and compelled women to ‘settle’ and pair-off with their nearest male equivalents. Thus, mutual sexual attraction, traditionally, has never been a requirement for long-terms relationships. Rather, sexual chemistry was (and in many cultures still is) a frequent trade-off that women were expected to make, in securing a long term mate – the reason being, that women are so selective in terms of sexual chemistry, as to render an insoluble scarcity of males to satisfy this requirement under assumptions of a monogamous mating system.”

    “Female sexual liberation (where they were no longer economically/politically dependent on their mates) changed all that, and engendered in effected female populations a kind of romantic idealism, that, for many, will be impossible to realize. And it is these kinds of unrealistic expectations that form the basis for much of the prevailing conflict between the sexes in the Western world. But, what most in the manosphere fails to grasp is that being a high-status male in the current mating market (post female sexual liberation) says less about independent wealth/status indicators, than about indications in physical attractiveness.”

    “Since the ‘problem’ I am describing is a systemic one, entangled in the most base and competitive of evolutionary concerns (which mediate all human rationality), there can be no common solution – these problems must resolve systemically, over evolutionary time(where we should expect that the same invariant evolutionary forces that acted upon small populations in the past – tending to constrain female choice – will likewise hold, and reassert themselves in the future).

    “Exactly, and that’s because the parameters of the game was changed, so that it no longer punishes defectors and free-riders, allowing these strategic morphs(anyone contributing to, and invested in the carousel-riding dynamic) to invade, and prosper at the expense of others.”

    “The thing about the dynamic of an altruistic system that rewards defectors, is that it is evolutionarily unstable, and will collapse once it falls below a critical density of altruists to support it(which will happen, as altruists incur such high fitness handicaps, that their relative frequency drops precipitously over evolutionary time).”

    • According to Mr. “Paragon” (aka “SymmetryBreaker”), surely the best commentator of all times on the manosphere

      That’s like saying the best smelling dog turd in the yard.

      • “That’s like saying the best smelling dog turd in the yard”

        Obviously that’s my subjective appreciation. I personally have never found such brilliance narrative mixed with scientific knowledge in other commentators on the manosphere.

        • Just crack open any pop evo psych book and get those exact same concepts, except with way less convoluted pretentious, Roissyish purple prose. Why do Roissyites always speak in this overintellectualized authoritative way just to make the most banal observations? What he’s saying is just Evo Psych 101 mixed in with fallacious Roissy Maxims and faulty premises (like his claim about “invariant evolutionary time”).

        • That commenter is a perfect example of what I call “reading yourself into retardation.” The Roissysphere is filled with people who read so much either good knowledge that they misinterpret, or bad knowledge that they take at face value, and manage to make themselves into dumbasses that sound superficially smart. His self-education has made him far stupider ironically.

      • @Grizzly

        Actually the last I remember Paragon was anti-game and proving that game is bullshit (from the comments he made on here, I don’t read other blogs).

        I also remember someone saying that Paragon was accused of being my sock puppet.

        Grizzly, do note that actual, true evo-psych actually shows that game is impossible. Don’t mistake evo-psych (the actual stuff in papers in academia) with roissy-psych.

        – Roissy-psych, where an illiterate Buffon reads a tabloid summary of a paper and twists it into meaning something the paper never said or even it’s exact opposite

        I’m not saying that evo-psych isn’t imperfect, but there’s this sad affair where people bash evo-psych based on second hand accounts.

      • “Any solution starts with not falling victim to con artists.”

        That’s not my case. I’m not one of theirs deluded victims. Anyway removing the bogus pua/game subculture and getting the whole dissolution of their social community would not change the mating market framework. Believe me.

        • Telling men not to play the passive aggressive toxic games of the female controlled dating scene will help.

          In fact I don’t agree with the concept of dating beyond cheap socializing. I might treat a male friend to a dinner but never a female.

        • The problem is larger than the game subculture. The entire dating advice industry is a scam. Exposing the dating advice con artists will cause everything else in male-female relations to be questioned. That’s the beginning of the solution.

  7. To identify the solution, you have to identify the problem. And it’s not enough to simply say the problem is “feminism.” Ideologies are not the problem, the problem is the people who spread them. “Women” are not the problem either. Anyone who has known women can tell you that they are childlike, stupid, and willing to do whatever the powerful men tell them. Just look at the third world if you think “women” are the problem. Women, in short, do what they are told.

    The problem is the Jews. They are the ones who have been promoting this feminism, promoting this poison. Look at the feminist leaders, mostly men but also a few women, and you will find that more than 80% of them are Jews.

    You are right about one thing, there are no personal solutions to systemic problems. Refusing to touch women as you promote on this site, that is exactly what the Jews want! They want whites to stop having White children. The solution to the problem must be systemic, and once you have identified the problem, you can easily identify the solution:

    • White knight here.

      So all the divorce instigated by women, false rape accusations, single mother child abusers, the nwo was behind it?

      Women are like children? I don’t think children are as vicious as women.

      Women should be held to moral standards, turning them into moral toddlers is a pussy begging cop out.

        • Also why does the nwo/the Jews pick women as the ones to instigate divorce?

          Hypergamy and social feralness is inate to females, even if some Jewish world order are the ones who changed the legal system, it is still females choosing to divorce, falsely accuse men of rape.

          Conspiracy theory is redundant.

        • Even if conspiracy theory was true, all that would mean is that women are not victims, but co-conspirators. Since conspiracy theorists don’t recognize this, they are full of shit even if conspiracy theory turned out to be correct.

    • Just look at the third world if you think “women” are the problem.

      Women are in charge in the third world. Africa is very matriarchial so women are definitely the problem in the third world.

      You’re full of shit like every other Jew hater that comes here.

      • Reason why Arab men are so violent to women is because they come from a culture where mothers are viciously violent to boys.

        Women in the third world do unbelievable amounts of abuse to kids.

        All these conspiracy nuts, who act all anti mainstream but still swallow mainstream feminists lies about female oppression in the third world, it is ironic.

    • Maybe Judaism is a feminist conspiracy. Maybe circumcised men have a harder time to masturbate making them pussy beggars. Maybe patrilinearity is even more important. Jewish men willing to convert non-Jewish women and raise the children as Jews, while it would be unthinkable to a WN to convert a Jewess.

  8. @Grizzly

    Let me to say, that your argument is skewed instrumentalism. More precisely, in this view, you believe that evolutionary theories are merely tools aimed either heuristic (useful for the advancement of knowledge) or predictive (useful as a basis for technical forecasts). Furthermore your technique appears to be the refutation by disparagement.

    Roissyish prose, Roissysphere…? Come on dude!, Paragon was the opposite. He was not trying to redefine anything, he was an anti-game/Pua apologyst and just merely pointing out on much of his comments that game is largely a myth canon and fails to agree with an evolutionary synthesis. He enjoyed an esteemed tenure as a mathematical biologist ( with a speciality in evolutionary systems), contributing singularly to the solution of important evolutionary problems.

    On the other hand evolutionary psychology/biology should be better equipped with empirical material. Many old researchers are not in touch with the present frontier of modern anthropology. Maybe some people like Paragon or myself are close to positivist and we are able to label our approach but much of the old academic arguments are not significantly correlated with observed accuracy.

    I just worry that several existing theories do not fit with the observations. The theory must make predictions and then they should be tested by observations, if these theories match the predictions, that does not prove the theory, but the theory survives to make further predictions, which are again checked with the observations, if not match the predictions, the theory must be abandoned.

    In practice, the science philosophers are not conducive to give a theory of resources to which they have devoted much time and effort. They often start to doubt the accuracy of the observations; an evolutionary theory is good if it is ingenious, if it describes a whole class of observations and predicts whether the results of new ones. Resarchers should ask whether theories correspond to obtaining and verifying data that can be received from the senses is known as empirical evidence.

    • Let me to say, that your argument is skewed instrumentalism. More precisely, in this view, you believe that evolutionary theories are merely tools aimed either heuristic (useful for the advancement of knowledge) or predictive (useful as a basis for technical forecasts).

      What are you talking about? My point is simply that nothing he says is especially brilliant. It’s basic evo psych 101, just in more convoluted, purple prose, mixed in with fallacious premises, like his unproven premise of future evolutionary forces being just as “invariant” as past evolutionary forces.

      Why do you guys have to overintellectualize the simplest things? Your point about my supposed belief in heuristics or predictive blah blah blah is irrelevant to what I said.

      Furthermore your technique appears to be the refutation by disparagement.

      And your technique appears to be refutation by erroneously fallacy accusations. A refutation by disparagement means that I disparage a person without addressing their point. If you say “The grass is green” and I say “well you’re an idiot” that’s refutation by disparagement. If you say “I’m a genius with novel points,” and I say “no, you’re an idiot who just regurgitates basic knowledge mixed with fallacious arguments” that’s not refutation by disparagement. The fact that someone is an idiot who spouts cliches is directly related to the point about whether said person is a genius thinker or not.

      You said he’s smart. I therefore respond that he’s a typical Roissyite idiot and I explain why. That’s not refutation by disparagement. The so-called disparagement is directly related to the point you were making.

      Roissyish prose, Roissysphere…? Come on dude!, Paragon was the opposite. He was not trying to redefine anything, he was an anti-game/Pua apologyst and just merely pointing out on much of his comments that game is largely a myth canon and fails to agree with an evolutionary synthesis.

      His whole narrative still reeks of a Roissyite worldview. He even uses the term carousel, as in “cock carousel.”

      On the other hand evolutionary psychology/biology should be better equipped with empirical material. Many old researchers are not in touch with the present frontier of modern anthropology. Maybe some people like Paragon or myself are close to positivist and we are able to label our approach but much of the old academic arguments are not significantly correlated with observed accuracy.

      I just worry that several existing theories do not fit with the observations. The theory must make predictions and then they should be tested by observations, if these theories match the predictions, that does not prove the theory, but the theory survives to make further predictions, which are again checked with the observations, if not match the predictions, the theory must be abandoned.

      In practice, the science philosophers are not conducive to give a theory of resources to which they have devoted much time and effort. They often start to doubt the accuracy of the observations; an evolutionary theory is good if it is ingenious, if it describes a whole class of observations and predicts whether the results of new ones. Resarchers should ask whether theories correspond to obtaining and verifying data that can be received from the senses is known as empirical evidence.

      What the fuck are you talking about and what on earth does it have to do with what I was saying? This is what I mean by speaking like a Roissyite. Do you read Dark Enlightenment blogs too. They also have this prolix, wordy, nonsensical pseudointellectual style of rambling on while responding to strawmen. You wasted all those paragraphs to rebut a point I never even made.

      • @Grizzly,

        “just in more convoluted, purple prose, mixed in with fallacious premises,”

        Actually, it is a very apt analogy. And you wouldn’t say such a thing if you had knowledge of the dual inheritance theory, also known as gene-culture coevolution. In humans, both genes and culture are containers of information passed from one generation to the next. Both genes and culture affect the phenotype, and therefore individual behavior. It follows that both genes are culture are subject to selection. In addition, genes are part of the environment in which culture evolves, and culture is part of the environment in which genes evolve.

        As large populations become insoluble(ex. in their rates of replacement, taken as a vector of instability) given a sufficient latitude of female choice.First, we can resonably infer this from unifying historical precedence with the knowledge that male dominated sexual conflict in reproductive potential would favor greater population fertility in a greater dispersion of reproductive success (by focusing pressures that have historically weighed against elective maternity).

        Second, A tendency to smaller male breeding populations will pose evolutionary problems in the form of large population replacement(incurring fertility losses through the overhead of increased female selectivity, and the time and energy costs that this entails) and inbreeding depression-type effects, which must ultimately reduce population viability(as deleterious recessives will tend to combine at greater frequencies in smaller populations).

        Eventually, this dynamic becomes unsustainable, as the population becomes evolutionarily unstable(indicated in tendencies to sub-replacement fertility – another symptom observed of developed world populations).Thus, unperturbed female sexual choice can be the most pernicious agency acting upon the stability of density dependent human systems.

        But, once these density dependent systems are destabilized(through indicated tendencies to sub-replacement fertility, and increasing marginalization of paternal advantage through welfare state dynamics), paternal advantage once again becomes a determinant factor in exerting pressures on female sexual choice, with evolution(given the opportunity) selecting for systems which render higher population fertility in outcompeting rival systems.

        And this is precisely why every nascent civilization has been intolerant and unforgiving of a general latitude in female sexual choice: because civilizations entail systems of co-operation and specialization that are highly density dependent, and thus have always followed from populations that exceed a rate of replacement(and eventually demand a sufficiently large male breeding population), while encouraging high numbers of male participation and co-operation through an inclusive male breeding population(by imposing systems that limit on female sexual latitude)

        None of this is reconcilable with female selectivity run-amok, which is the inescapable consequence of female sexual liberation. So paternal advantage has disappeared (sufficient ecological selection pressures will pose paternal investment advantages in offspring success, favoring females who mate with strategically inclined males).

        The prevailing latitude of female sexual choice(ie. following from their economic/political independence in developed world populations) is only possible through a complex, density dependent(on population) system of mediated prosperity, which compensates for inferior female aptitudes/contributions by expropriating male contributions for the unequal benefit of females.

        “just in more convoluted, purple prose” “The fact that someone is an idiot who spouts cliches is directly related to the point about whether said person is a genius thinker or not.”

        I did not say he was a genius. I quoted several texts that adequately express some of the issues that we are discussing. And it belongs to an ex commentator who shares the vast majority of my thoughts (I confess that not all). I apologize if anyone on here was offended to say that my opinion about Paragon is one of the brightest commentators on the Manosphere. I’m sorry but despite your insults I still think Mr Paragon was quite above average level in ideology, scientific thought, creativity and semantics.

        Yes, of course your assessment consists of belittle. If you want to criticize his style literary, there is no need to qualify him as pretentious or stupid. First I doubt you’ve read the hundreds of comments as Paragon on “Dalrock”, “Evanmarckatz”, “Hooking Up Smart”, “Black Pill”, “Theseductionmith” or as Symmetrybreaker on “thedoctorstv.com” and “dimensionsmagazine.com”. So you do not have a broad framework to judge him.

        I have read many great commentators on blogs specialized in sociobiology, HBD, genetics, evolutionary biology, anthropology, etc. but I think that most bloggers and commentators on the manosphere and Men Rights websites are vitiated by quite scientific stringency. Anyway most manosphere readers/commentators are overall respectful, which can not be said precisely about you. That’s ok if you think he’s not a meritorious writer, but I can’t catch your points on qualifying contemptuously without any cause, and I don’t know what your purpose.

        Clearly you have been interrupting needlessly with your prejudice /offensive comments about a person who is not present. Of course you are entitled to make your own assessments, although really no one asked your opinion. Maybe you want just gain attention

        Furthermore I do not understand your efforts to criticize the academic prose. It is fine if you and the most of the blogosphere would rather write directly, colloquially and vigorously, but others like myself prefer some of the stiffness and stasis of the academic style. And academic prose is, of course, the most detailed, technical, and verifiable literature in relation to information contained. True it is also the type understood by the smallest audience as the other types are for general audiences using colloquial language.

        “His whole narrative still reeks of a Roissyite worldview. He even uses the term carousel, as in “cock carousel

        Yes, he used some of the acronyms and lingo we all encounter here and in the “manosphere” in general. And what does that matter? Understanding or using the jargon of a particular community marks you as a “member” of their community? And even if subset of it, called pua/game community, share the same lingo, that makes you a “member” of their sub-community? I will not impinge again on that Mr. Paragon was an anti-pua/game apologist.

        “like his unproven premise of future evolutionary forces being just as “invariant” as past evolutionary forces.”

        Natural selection will deal with the problem by (at the individual selection level) replacing the population who are vulnerable to the life history delaying effects of the supernormal stimulus with individuals who are immune to its effects, eading to a selection pressure for faster life history; and also (at the group selection level).

        As to a guess at the specific nature of the supernormal stimulus, it would have to be something/s that began to operate right back around 1800 among the upper classes (one sign of it would be the growth of feminism from that era onwards); near the beginning of the rise in prosperity (per capita) due to the agrarian/ industrial revolution, because that is when the current demographic transition began. Then the signal progressively went down the social classes.

        Probably something linked with ‘increasing prosperity’, literacy, and cognitive specialization, that kind of thing. Alternatively, it may be something to do with ‘individualism’, and an escape from the repression entailed by group-selection (group selection only works when individual-satisfaction, maximizers, free riders are sufficiently prevented or eliminated).

        Sub-replacement fertility that we currently see isn’t “adaptive” per se; it’s adaptation in progress. We are currently witnessing ongoing selection in response to changing environmental conditions (one with lengthy educations and effective contraception).

        “What the fuck are you talking about and what on earth does it have to do with what I was saying? This is what I mean by speaking like a Roissyite. Do you read Dark Enlightenment blogs too. They also have this prolix, wordy, nonsensical pseudointellectual style of rambling on while responding to strawmen. You wasted all those paragraphs to rebut a point I never even made.”

        Well you’re right, it makes little sense to your comment, but what I meant there is quite evolutionary biology misconception within the old school indoctrination. Although I will avoid elaborate this issue for readers do not get bored.

        No I don’t read that, you failed. I read mainly good scientific Papers / Books.

        • Sigh… It’s another one of those sad extremes caused by an extreme. Grizzly’s a smart guy, and I can’t blame him for being antagonistic towards evo-theories, he’s has to endure/see so much quasi-intellectual bs that it’s normal for him to assume any complex evo-theory is “random babbling prose”, I don’t blame him, I blame the manosphere.

          Manospherians ruined the reputation of evo-psych. We’ve seen so many of these ignorant high-school dropouts who randomly pseudo-intellectualize throwing around evo-psych terms… That these days our minds automatically assume anyone with a similar format is the same.

          Extremes crating antagonistic opposite extremes is common. It’s also how gamers created the opposite extreme of game (pua-hate type people). These are a group of people who believe there is absolutely nothing you can do to become more successful with women and are doomed for life.

          This extreme is in stark contrast to the game extreme. Remember game is the belief that you can “control” and “create attraction”.

          The truth is somewhere in the middle and actually closest to mainstream flirting manuals.

          – you can become more attractive in general (shower, gym, fashion, status)

          – you can learn to flirt and socialize better and yes it is a skill, knowing how to read and show interest.

          Unfortunately since pua haters were burned by the game scam (or mainstream equivalent dating advice) – they are knee jerk antagonistic toward the idea that the gym or social skills can help them get more chicks.

          Perhaps because any mention of “skill” immediately brings up a knee jerk reminder of “game”.

          In fact, game as pushed by gamers, is the scam notion that you can get “skilled” at “creating attraction”.

          So when anti-puas hear of “skill” their knee jerk reaction is to bash it, even when it’s not a scam – I.e social skills or flirting skills.

        • In fairness to the PUA Hate type people, they have a point. It’s safe to say that at least 99.9% of dating advice (whether its game or more mainstream dating advice) is a scam in some form whether its a monetary scam or not.

        • It’s safe to say that at least 99.9% of dating advice (whether its game or more mainstream dating advice) is a scam in some form

          I agree, 99% of dating advice articles/books out there are in fact a scam in the sense that they push diversions that are merely meant to keep you on the “mdad
          ” treadmill.

          I was reading a mainstream dating article the other day (10 secrets or some shit). The tips were such diversionary bullshit that I could only capture their absurdity through an analogy.

          Imagine someone wrote an article (10 secrets to winning rally races) and it went like this:

          1) make sure that the car you drive is a car that you are fond of so you enjoy racing, but don’t be too fond of your car so you don’t drive too safely which can ruin your chance of finishing first

          2) when you’re picking a color for the tires, make sure it’s different than the other drivers’ tires so it confuses them subconsciously, but don’t choose a color that’s too different as it might be too obvious and your plan might fail

          3) befriend all of the mechanics in every city that you race, you never know who might have a secret tip for you, but make sure to not get too friendly as you might get accused of playing politics

          Etc… Etc… That’s how most dating advice reads to me…

          Anything that tells you to worry about what to say or do, or how to act around women with the intention of winning their attraction is a scam.

          A woman either likes you or doesn’t. Changing the how or what you say (on the spot in real time) to make a woman like you isn’t just pussybegging, it also doesn’t work.

          Now to clarify, you can make long-term changes to who you are and those can make a difference. It’s just that “real-time” changes of what you say or do around one given woman is a scam.

          Of course if you spend a few years traveling you might meet a lot of new friends and have more interesting conversations that makes women relax around you and more readily admit interest… But that’s a long-term change and again it doesn’t actually “create attraction” on the spot, you really are a more-travelled person which might be more attractive to more people.

          And even then “travel more” only affects “long-term interest” – ie more women are likely to fancy you for a boyfriend (provider).

          For hookups – short term attraction (lust), this is entirely based on your looks. You’re either her physical type or not.

          The only “real time” (acute on the spot) skill you can develop is an ability to get the interested ones to admit and act on their attraction. You can become skilled at creating opportunities for horny women to admit they want to bang you and hook up… But you’re still not “making them”

          You can become more attractive in the long-run as a provider

          You can change what you say or how you act to get women to admit their attraction (both lust and provider attraction)

          You CANT create attraction by changing what you say or do (neither type of attraction).

          It merely seems that way because women are masters at the game. The only “game” that exists is the one women play at tricking you into thinking you “won them over”.

          SHE was interested all along, she just hid her interest so that you can feel like you won her over with all the crap you did. She played you, you didn’t play her.

          This is why all dating advice (aside from flirting manuals) is a scam. And again I define flirting as the subtle skill at knowing how to show and read interest and provide opportunities for them to admit interest back.

        • Alek, just to make certain clear, my problems with the Paragon stuff isn’t what that commenter SAYS my problems with it are. I’m not in the least bit anti evo psych. I actually love evo psych and read a lot of it. What I’m against is people who take basic evo psych and subtly misunderstand it or overstate its significance and use it to make questionable predictions about the FUTURE.

          That’s why in my earlier comments I said “The Roissysphere is filled with people who read so much…good knowledge that they misinterpret” Much of the information they read, including the evo psych and scientific studies, is quite good. The way they interpret said studies and the future projections they draw from them on the other hand are often not.

          I just want to make clear, again, that my problem is not some extreme where Roissysphere dumbasses have supposedly made me anti-evo psych.

          Also, my other problems are that Paragon, even if he is supposedly anti-game, has arrived at an anti-game stance while at the same time adopting and accepting much Roissyite language and premises, for example the cock carousel, and ideas about past evolutionary forces being the same as future evolutionary forces, and other subtle Roissyisms that I notice in his writing. Even if he has adopted anti-Roissy game, I think he’s arrived there while still unquestioning adopting some fallacious Roissyite premises. He’s right for partially the wrong reasons.

          Finally, the language is overwritten, flowery and pretentious much in the same way as Roissy’s was my final complaint.

          I don’t always believe that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. There are some supposed antigame or moderate types who still fall into much of the same annoying habits and tendencies of pro-Roissyites. That’s all I was pointing out.

  9. oh hai misogynist’s….

    I guess you could call this intersectionality…

    “It [is] very easy for government ministers…to talk around “we will stop trafficking”, as a code for “we will stop immigration and protect your white land”. – Belinda Brooks-Gordon

    http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/that-was-the-week-that-was-405/

    It is such a huuuuge coincy-dink that many of the things Queen Marcotte and I advocate for are the same as what the WN’s advocate for.

    The real reason prostitution is bad is because some icky women break the union that other womyn have to keep sex scarce for pathetic misogynist’s like you. Keep on saving up for that diamond ring losers!!!

    • Although Cultural “Marxism” APPEARS to place anti-racism above feminism, it does enable white women to spread their white genes as wide as possible in non-white communities. White vagina worship by another name?

  10. I don’t disagree with the MRA agenda, but it is obvious that for you MRA is just being used as a vehicle for your sexual frustration. You are angry that, for some reason, white women shun you. People like you do nothing for the agenda of men’s rights, you just make it associated with a bunch of losers and race traitors. If you really want men’s rights to succeed you should shut down your blog, because everyone can see through the bullshit of your so-called ideology.

    • If you’re for real, you gave yourself away with “race traitors”. You’re just pissed that white men have kicked you to the curb. Since you’re using a tor exit node, you’re probably not for real. In which case, Forneydarmu, you have proven you don’t get laid ever.

    • Single mothers who have kicked the fathers out are social poison. You are not even worth a hump and dump dear.

  11. oh hai again misogynist’s….

    why are our womyn paying men in other continents for sex?

    http://www.hyperaktiv.co.uk/recent-surge-in-hiv-rates-amongst-heterosexuals-in-the-uk-caused-by-female-sex-tourism-say-experts/

    C Rudd and Ryu will be vewy vewy angweee…

    And even tho Mandy MArcotte pays a man who thinks she’s disgusing and only tolerates her because he needs to feed his children, I think she is “empowered.” You Go Grrrl….

  12. Since this is a blog that Tyrion Lannister frequents, I would like to do a pingback response to some of his comments(which

    nonetheless maintain relevance to this thread) left for me on other blogs(one from which I have been banned), should the blog

    owner graciously accord me that latitude.

    First, I would like to say that I have eminent respect for Tyrion as a reasonable, independent thinker, and contributor to

    the manosphere.

    That being said, I feel we hold disagreements which can only be clarified through open discourse, and in a manner which can

    hopefully prove instructive to us both.

    As I have said before – To err is human, while knowledge is the refinement of error.

    Pingback: http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/thoughts-on-the-8020-college-hookup-question/

    “@Paragon,

    ‘It then follows that genetically attractive males should evolve strategies that expedite this kind of traffic(frequently

    indicated in abuse, delinquency, and promiscuity), as documented in the study: “Good genes, mating effort, and delinquency’

    Evidence suggests the opposite pattern:

    1) You would have to prove that there is a direct association between physical attractiveness and good genes, which is not

    entirely clear:

    The polyandric pattern that we see today in humans, which women mate with a minority of males could have the most marked

    effect in reducing the number of deleterious mutations in the next generation. When environmental mutagenesis falls, the

    number of eligible males would increase and a species would change from a polygamous to a monogamous pattern of mating.”

    I’m afraid that assumption won’t hold, because of the mutation-selection balance and maternal effects in intra-genomic sexual

    conflict(which should preserve a sufficient variance in male attractiveness over evolutionary time).

    “Therefore if sexual attraction is a force which counteracts genomic degradation this result would imply that women should

    not be attracted by good genes, but by a lack of bad genes.”

    Precisely.

    Evolutionary ‘culling'(of deleterious traits) is a more apt description of how evolutionary selection actually works.

    “Humans should choose mates in a way that maximizes their reproductive success. But what exactly is the optimal choice? Most

    empirical research is based on the assumption that individuals seek a mate of the highest possible quality (in terms of the

    genes or resources that can provide), and hence show directional preferences for indicators of mate quality. This would imply

    that attractiveness and quality should be highly correlated. But surprisingly there are not a linear relationship between

    beauty or its components and genetic fitness, and there are not particular greater mate qualities of those who are highly

    attractive. Empirical research show that whereas unattractive faces can signal poor genetic fitness, on this account, those

    who avoid mates with extremely unattractive faces would have increased their reproductive success over those who did not. In

    the extreme case of genetic anomalies, such as Down’s syndrome, it is obvious that unattractive faces signal low health and

    intelligence. However, faces that are above average in attractiveness are no more ‘‘fit’’ than those in the middle of the

    attractiveness.”

    First, let us assume that extreme deviations in bi-lateral symmetry, or other potential indicators/markers of developmental

    incompetence can be taken as ‘signals’of ‘bad'(fitness handicapped) genes.

    Following from this assumption, might it not be the case that females would be better insured against developmental

    incompetencies(in both their mates and consequent offspring) by screening for such potential markers through ‘evolved’

    sensory/cognitive biases which select against them(since there would be no way for individual females to reliably assess

    population averages, weighted observations could act as a hedge against potential defects), thus according higher value to

    certain directional/quantitative tendencies in male secondary sexual characteristics?

    If so, such biases could become fixed in a female population(persisting in evolutionary time even beyond their point of

    fixation) if selection has worked strongly enough to focus these directional pressures.

    “Specifically, some mathematical models have shown that the preferred male must provide genes that increase the survivorship

    or mating success of the offspring as compared to the genes provided by less desirable males. And empirical research on lek

    mating systems, as well as other non resource-based mating systems has confirmed the association between mate preference and

    increased offspring viability, although the fitness effects appear small at only a few percent. Beauty provided valid cues to

    intelligence and/or health for faces in the lower but not the upper halves of the distributions of these facial qualities.

    Thus, low attractiveness (low averageness, low symmetry, or low sexual dimorphism) signal low fitness, as indexed by

    intelligence or health. On the other hand, high attractiveness does not signal any higher levels of fitness than does

    moderate levels of these attribute. Then mate preferences for attractive faces could not have enhanced reproductive success

    via choice mates in the top half of the beauty distribution. So maybe humans not only correctly utilize these cues when they

    are valid, but they also overgeneralize, utilizing these cues in the upper half of the distribution, where they are not

    valid. Therefore beauty preferences appear to have evolved under the influence of both the good genes and the runaway

    selection mechanisms.”

    Yes, I am seeing the same thing and I think we are in agreement with this.

    “2) You would have to prove that physical attractiveness is correlated with delinquency and criminal behavior, which is

    refuted by several studies:”

    Then we have both cited disputing studies.

  13. Pingback:

    http://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/online-dating-tips-advice/why-do-women-in-their-30s-not-want-to-date-men-in-their-40s/

    “@Paragon,
    ‘Actually Evan, I’ve presented evidence from research surrounding the ‘self-seeking like theory’ of assortative mating, which observes a correlation between long-term mates and assortative mating(which also extends beyond facial similarities, in other studies I can link).’

    First, correlation of facial resemblances among some partners does not imply causation. Yes, there are some couples with some facial similarities but this does not mean that it is a result of male cognitive bias leading to find a self-resemblance female mate. You’re also ignoring that this process would require the courtship acceptance by the desired self-similar woman; but according that theory, she is not mediated by this own-traits attraction bias. And the mating behavior experienced by an malefrom females exerts a regulatory influence on his own mating strategy.”

    The assumption is that the concerns of agreeable females are apparently favoring investment resources, and other quantities of long term value(perhaps given a dearth of compelling alternatives) that say nothing of self-seeking attraction.

    “It is well-known that indiviuduals have little awareness of own attractiveness [See Feingold 1992, Diener et al. 1995, Bleske-Rechek & Lighthall 2010. Hence it seems even more unlikely that there is a high awareness of own phenotypic traits
    that would allow for to seeking a physically similar partner. So what would be the nature of that facial self-similarity processing system?

    The real mechanisms that produce within-pair similarity of physical attractiveness are [Kalick & Hamilton 1986, Lee et al. 2008, Courtiol et al. 2010, Hitsch et al. 2010]:

    1) Courtship Rejections

    2) Strategic Courtship and

    3) Tentative Relationships”

    And here we come to your contradictions – strategic courtship following from courtship rejections implies a heuristic process which depends on abstract thinking with some basis in self-awareness(this should be obvious to everyone).

    “It has been proved that two other previously proposed mechanisms (homotypic preference and phenotypic correlation)were wrong:

    A) Homotypic Preference: This means that individuals prefer partners of similar attractiveness to their own. Scientists premised homotypic preference for a long time [Walster et al. 1966] until empirical research proved that people prefer
    individuals of high attractiveness rather than that similar to their own [Walster et al. 1966, Huston 1973] (see also Asendorpf et al. 2011, Back et al. 2011; Hitsch et al. 2010, Shaw Taylor et al. 2011], Okcupid Blog, etc).

    B) Phenotypic Correlation. Within-pair matching for a feature may arise even if people pay no attention to this feature in prospective partners, if the feature is correlated with a trait of homotypic preference.

    For example, the homotypic preference for body height results in matching on the length of arms [Crow & Felsenstein 1968].

    Because people perceive faces similar to their own in a positive way, matching in physical attractiveness may result from seeking a physically similar partner [Lee et al. 2008].

    However, the preference for selfsimilar faces pertains largely or exclusively to own-sex rather than opposite-sex faces [DeBruine et al. 2008, Watkins et al. 2011, but see Fraley & Marks 2010].

    Furthermore, facial attractiveness is non-monotonically associated with many traits, and peaks at their medium, not extreme, values.

    For example, facial attractiveness increases with the averageness of facial proportions [Rhodes 2006, Kościński 2007], and women prefer men with moderately masculine faces [Kościński 2007, Scott & Penton- Voak 2011].

    This weakens the influence of a possible preference for self-similar partners for within-pair matching on attractiveness.

    Manipulated images of other-sex faces are judged as more trustworthy by the participants they were made to resemble than by control participants.

    In contrast, the effects of resemblance on attractiveness are significantly lower.

    In the context of a long-term relationship, where both prosocial regard and sexual appeal are important criteria, facial resemblance has no effect.

    In the context of a short-term relationship, where sexual appeal is the dominant criterion, facial resemblance decrease attractiveness.

    Humans are sensitive to the costs and benefits of favouring kin in different circumstances, therefore cues of relatedness have a positive effect on prosocial feelings, but a negative effect on sexual attraction.

    Facial male self-resemblance serves as a kinship cue that facilitates cooperation between kin.”

  14. “@ Martin Cruz(ie. Paragon),

    ‘The assumption is that the concerns of agreeable females are apparently favoring investment resources, and other quantities of long term value (perhaps given a dearth of compelling alternatives) that say nothing of self-seeking attraction.’

    “Honestly I doubt that they are apparently favouring investment resources, and other quantities of long term value. Since most women display the opposite pattern in the current mating framework, prevaling male physical attractiveness in their mate choices.”

    Yes, for those women that have the luxury of discounting direct benefits(male contributions/investments of long-term value), which is to say NOT MOST WOMEN AT ALL(the developed Western world does NOT represent the majority of the world’s human breeding populations!).

    But, if you are claiming this is incorrect, then what would you propose is the parsimonious explanation?

    What is the mechanism compelling/driving these women to *accept* suitors whom they should otherwise find particularly unattractive(given their expected sexual aversion to self-resembling mates)?

    “Moreover let me say that you’re who are contradicting yourself when you’re arguing against those thoughts you held time ago (which I share).”

    There is no contradiction – only different assessments of disparate populations, where disparate selection pressures prevail.

    “Assuming a false presumption where men would prefer women with similar faces: In any case if females are the limiting sex; and they have shown to be more critical in judging male attractiveness; and if most studies have proved females do not show any preference for similarity -they prefer the most attractive male faces-. Then, we would expect those males resembling facially to their desirable females targets would more ineffective in their mating effort (comparing their mating success with regard to dissimilar women).”

    Please note that no one has claimed men ‘prefer’ women with facial resemblance – only that long term mating interactions tend towards some significant resemblance between mates(presumably driven by some measure of male-driven strategy and compromise, more than unhindered preference).

    Also, you would do well to consider effects in intra-genomic sexual conflict(maternally weighted given mutational load on the Y chromosome) which observes a kind of ‘chirality’ in terms of how selection preserves/ensures sexual dimorphism by focusing disparate pressures at equivalent loci, and demonstrates that those phenotype which contribute to attractiveness do not generally correspond between the sexes!

    ‘And here we come to your contradictions – strategic courtship following from courtship rejections implies a heuristic process which depends on abstract thinking with some basis in self-awareness (this should be obvious to everyone).’

    “I do not perceive any contradiction in my argument.Well an awareness of own attractiveness is important for strategic courtship, where lowly-attractive individuals accept relatively unattractive candidates, and for tentative relationships, where lowly-attractive people refrain from dropping an unattractive partner to form a tentative bond with a more attractive alternative. We may expect that natural selection has developed psychological mechanisms for accurate evaluation of own attractiveness. But nobody is talking about awareness of own phenotypic features, neurological mechanism that would have to occur to producing within-pair similarity of phenotypic traits. Which would be a necessary factor for proving your self seeking like” hypothesis.”

    There is no proof, only a reasonable assumption – if intra-sexual facial self-similarity can be reliably assessed(per your own citation), then the burden you are proposing should not exist!

    • @ Paragon,

      I feel the delay, I’m not used to enter on here often. But accidentally I saw your comments today. I was also banned by evanmarckatz.

      Regarding Self-seeking like Hypothesis (Liliana Alvarez):

      Firt, I do not understand how you try to support this hypothesis when yourself argued time ago against it on this site:

      https://web.archive.org/web/20121028045744/http://www.seductionmyth.com/reality_check/her-type/

      Second, why allow speculation to reign when we can just look at the evidence? Of course, one has to always keep in mind the totality of the evidence, not just one poor example like that. Always be wary of small samples. That’s why I try to use/look meta-analyses or studies with very large samples whenever possible. Indeed, always check your confidence intervals! And let’s not forget about our friend Occam’s Razor. Keep in mind that if really could be found a wide population correlation, that doesn’t necessarily mean causation (preference for similar opposite-sex faces). And a valid research should look at the effect of resemble preferences in mating by looking at the phenotypic correlation between spouses of twins and their co-twins, for example. That study works with a small sample size (36 randomly selected couples): is not a valid representation of the population. And Incorrect methods: Lack of validation of subjective assessments: the test subjects (over 100 volunteers) had to assign each of the photographs of female target subjects to one of the males.

      Furthermore, the appropriate methodology would be to run a morphometric study of a wide sample size of real couples for the purpose of developing a more scientific and aesthetic guide that helps facial evaluation. At least basic facial landmarks (Mainly Sn: subnasale Al: alaree Gn: gnathion and Go: gonion, so on) . A multivariate analysis of covariance should be undertaken to detect significant differences in facial morphometry between mates.

      “But, if you are claiming this is incorrect, then what would you propose is the parsimonious explanation?
      What is the mechanism compelling/driving these women to *accept* suitors whom they should otherwise find particularly unattractive(given their expected sexual aversion to self-resembling mates)?”

      A low mate value. Inter-individual variability with regard to the question of which traits are perceived as attractive/beautiful to what degree and which are in demand while choosing a mate, are easily explained basing on market value theory as a sexual partner. Women of above-average attractiveness need to make fewer compromises with regard to mate selection than women who are less attractive, by waiving the sexual attractiveness of their partners in favor of parental invesment – or viceversa. Women of above-average beauty in the market for mates can afford to raise their personal standards with regard to both aspects, and therefore, their aesthetic cognitions are more critical concerning masculine sex appeal (Buss and Shackelford [2008]).

      The attractive people will pair with each other leaving the nonattractive ones to mate among themselves [Burley 1983, Kalick & Hamilton 1986]. Experiments by Ellis and Kelley [1999] seem to support this view.

      http://www.ionica.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Searching-for-the-next-best-mate.pdf
      http://www.academia.edu/648140/Overall_mate_attractiveness_Towards_a_Computational_Metaphor_of_Human_Mate_Choice
      “http://cals.arizona.edu/fcs/sites/cals.arizona.edu.fcs/files/JPSP%20Kavanagh%20Robins%20Ellis%202010.pdf”

      “http://www.indiana.edu/~abcwest/pmwiki/pdf/simao.adaptbehav.2002.pdf” “http://smaldino.com/docs/MateChoice-Complexity-EarlyView_wSuppl.pdf”

      “Please note that no one has claimed men ‘prefer’ women with facial resemblance – only that long term mating interactions tend towards some significant resemblance between mates (presumably driven by some measure of male-driven strategy and compromise, more than unhindered preference).”

      you can not generalize of this study to some few facial correlations being due to male-driven strategy and compromise. Search frictions play a role in explaining the discrepancy. At any moment in time, individuals have limited options for social interactions, which are constrained by attractiveness, education, income, social environment (sex ratio, population density…), space geographic, mobility, etc. Understanding the dynamics of human mate choice requires thinking seriously about the factors that structure complex social interactions.

      I’m going to reply back to the other questions another day. Today I don’t have time. Regards.

      • @ Tyrion Lannister,

        “I feel the delay, I’m not used to enter on here often. But accidentally I saw your comments today. I was also banned by evanmarckatz.

        Regarding Self-seeking like Hypothesis (Liliana Alvarez):

        Firt, I do not understand how you try to support this hypothesis when yourself argued time ago against it on this site:

        https://web.archive.org/web/20121028045744/http://www.seductionmyth.com/reality_check/her-type/

        Second, why allow speculation to reign when we can just look at the evidence? Of course, one has to always keep in mind the totality of the evidence, not just one poor example like that. Always be wary of small samples. That’s why I try to use/look meta-analyses or studies with very large samples whenever possible. Indeed, always check your confidence intervals! And let’s not forget about our friend Occam’s Razor. Keep in mind that if really could be found a wide population correlation, that doesn’t necessarily mean causation (preference for similar opposite-sex faces). And a valid research should look at the effect of resemble preferences in mating by looking at the phenotypic correlation between spouses of twins and their co-twins, for example. That study works with a small sample size (36 randomly selected couples): is not a valid representation of the population. And Incorrect methods: Lack of validation of subjective assessments: the test subjects (over 100 volunteers) had to assign each of the photographs of female target subjects to one of the males.

        Furthermore, the appropriate methodology would be to run a morphometric study of a wide sample size of real couples for the purpose of developing a more scientific and aesthetic guide that helps facial evaluation. At least basic facial landmarks (Mainly Sn: subnasale Al: alaree Gn: gnathion and Go: gonion, so on) . A multivariate analysis of covariance should be undertaken to detect significant differences in facial morphometry between mates.”

        I should clarify that you are correct.

        The study I cited references an unrepresentative sample, using unsound methodology.

        If I were to venture an explanation for any non- random effects in this study, it would be to propose some subset of males where Self-seeking strategies are learned behaviors borne out of spurious notions in conflating symmetry between sexes.

        A defect of reasoning.

        “A low mate value. Inter-individual variability with regard to the question of which traits are perceived as attractive/beautiful to what degree and which are in demand while choosing a mate, are easily explained basing on market value theory as a sexual partner. Women of above-average attractiveness need to make fewer compromises with regard to mate selection than women who are less attractive, by waiving the sexual attractiveness of their partners in favor of parental invesment – or viceversa. Women of above-average beauty in the market for mates can afford to raise their personal standards
        with regard to both aspects, and therefore, their aesthetic cognitions are more critical concerning masculine sex appeal (Buss and Shackelford [2008]).”

        It sounds like a compromise borne out of low mate value, moreso on the female part.

      • @ Tyrion Lannister

        “Anyway if the real huge inequality in male mating success was a reliable correlate of offspring in the modern frame, (that is not)”

        I don’t know what u mean by ‘reliable’.

        There may be no ‘reliable’ data on any correlation, but I think it is safe to assume there is a correlation(females may be more focused on physical attraction for casual sex, but I would still say that physical attraction is the strongest determinant for reproductive success -as far as developed world populations are concerned).

        “tending to a small breeding male population, recessive deleterious mutations are typically rare. The potential adverse health consequences of notably altering group-specific genetic correlation structures outweigh the possible phenotypes mixing benefits related to decreasing the likelihood of obtaining identical copies of recessive deleterious mutations from parents belonging to different phenotypes.”

        You are referring to epistasis.

        The human fitness landscape is rugged, so any dynamic that has a strong likelihood to preturb the stability of epistatic ‘neighbourhoods'(‘notably altering group-specific genetic correlation structures’, as you put it) can likewise be seen as dysgenic.

        Inbreeding depression, however, is something that even the layman can grasp.

        But, the point is, that any rapid trend to smaller male breeding populations is likely to be a dysgenic trend.

  15. Pingback:

    http://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/online-dating-tips-advice/why-do-women-in-their-30s-not-want-to-date-men-in-their-40s/

    “@Paragon,
    ‘Also, we have to remember that full male expression of secondary sexual characteristics occur over a greater span of their life history, while neoteny is an important factor in the expression of female characteristics(explaining a singular bias for young females in mate selection).’

    “That is doubtful. Since that Zebrowitz et al, (1993) showed that attractiveness ratings of male faces went down at about the same pace as they did for females; suggesting that a youthful appearance and neoteny might contribute to attractiveness in both sexes. In other study based in ratings of physical attractiveness reflect a negative correlation between age and beauty.

    Ratings of striking attractiveness or handsomeness were quite heavily concentrated among subjects under 35, and the rest of ratings distribution tends to show steady deterioration with growing age (Campbell et al 1976). Milord found that age was an important determinant of preference judgements for facial attractiveness of two age groups, with younger faces being prefered. Korthase found that a strong negative correlation (r= – 0.91) between perceived age and physical attractiveness in the ratings of facial photographs of young, middle-aged, and older adults.”

    I specified “the full range of expression of male secondary sexual characteristics” – these are not limited to physical traits, but also encompass the emergent ‘behavioral’.

    So my argument is, indeed, that these women are tending to favor direct benefits over genetic benefits.

    “@ Paragon

    ‘the predictable inbreeding-depression type effects(where deleterious
    recessives can combine at greater frequencies in smaller breeding populations) of a male biased operational sex ratio(as prevails in most animal populations, including humans).

    Thus, female sexual choice(irrespective of age) is *always* a significant, and predictable factor with inbreeding depression-type effects(ie. with respect to deleterious trait frequencies)’

    Anyway if the real huge inequality in male mating success was a reliable correlate of offspring in the modern frame, (that is not) tending to a small breeding male population, recessive deleterious mutations are typically rare. The potential adverse health consequences of notably altering group-specific genetic correlation structures outweigh the possible phenotypes mixing benefits related to decreasing the likelihood of obtaining identical copies of recessive deleterious mutations from parents belonging to different phenotypes.”

    Well, that’s the whole point of sexual reproduction,isn’t it? To allow selection to operate more opportunistically, in terms of frequencies over time(focusing selection against loss of function mutations, while still preserving sufficient
    material/plasticity for novel advantages).

    So, yes, you are absolutely correct in that sense.

    The only point I would like to stress is that female choice is *not* independent of risk factors in loss of function mutations, or their economic costs(unless we are speaking of captive females, which we clearly are not).

    It is not a question of evolutionary stability, nor a comment on evolutionary strategic opportunity costs.

    “@Paragon,

    ‘But, mutation-risk isn’t all bad, as that is also how adaptive phenotypes arise.’

    1) Genetic benefits for her offspring (indexed for physical appearance); having a child with older men carries significantly higher risks of birth defects through mutations. And 2) direct benefits (indicated in investment strategies with respect to material resources, and paternal investment). Older husbands far more likely to die, have a shorter life-span, and leave the mother without support so there are significant disadvantages.”

    Yes, and they are also more likely to have accumulated greater resources, with diminishing opportunities for casual sex, contributing to more stable pair-bonds – where both factors explain a dominant preference for older males in many(all?)
    developing nations(whose populations outnumber developed nations).

    ” So, what is the likely consequence of a higher paternal age? Population B will eventually be significantly dumber and crazier than population A.”

    Assuming that ‘dumber’ and ‘crazier’ translates to a significant fitness handicap(which I would not assume out of hand).

    • @ Paragon,

      “Also, you would do well to consider effects in intra-genomic sexual conflict(maternally weighted given mutational load on the Y chromosome) which observes a kind of ‘chirality’ in terms of how selection preserves/ensures sexual dimorphism by focusing disparate pressures at equivalent loci, and demonstrates that those phenotype which contribute to attractiveness do not generally correspond between the sexes”

      Yes you are right if we we rely on “sexually dimorphic” traits, (leaving aside “averageness / prototypicality” and bilateral symmetry). True, intralocus sexual conflictoccurs when sex-specific selection favors genes that increase fitness in one sex and decrease fitness in the other sex. On the other hand, the positive genetic correlation between male and female attractiveness and the negative genetic correlation between male facial attractiveness and female facial masculinity–femininity suggest that alleles influencing variation in these traits are consistently beneficial—or maladaptive—regardless of sex. One mechanism for maintaining genetic variation in the face of such directional selection is mutation-selection balance: although some of the alleles affecting these traits are conducive to both sexes’ reproductive success, a constant influx of deleterious mutations is introduced each generation that maintains a degree of maladaptive variation in the population.

      See for example: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/25/2/476

      ”I specified “the full range of expression of male secondary sexual characteristics” – these are not limited to physical traits, but also encompass the emergent ‘behavioral’.
      So my argument is, indeed, that these women are tending to favor direct benefits over genetic benefits.”

      Do you mean again to women from underdeveloped countries? Anyway, frankly, I do not think you were referring to such women on “evanmarckatz”, since that the conceptual framework in such forums/blogs are mainly our local women. And obviously western women prioritize the indirect benefits, skewing their choices towards physical attractiveness.

      “Yes, and they are also more likely to have accumulated greater resources, with diminishing opportunities for casual sex, contributing to more stable pair-bonds – where both factors explain a dominant preference for older males in many(all?) developing nations(whose populations outnumber developed nations). ”

      Agreed, but you’re shifting the attention to other ecological / geographic environments.

      “Assuming that ‘dumber’ and ‘crazier’ translates to a significant fitness handicap (which I would not assume out of hand).”

      I’d dare to say that if it is linked. I’d suggest check out some of the Greg Cochran’s essays:

      http://westhunt.wordpress.com/?s=paternal+age

      • @ Tyrion Lannister,

        “Yes you are right if we we rely on “sexually dimorphic” traits, (leaving aside “averageness / prototypicality” and bilateral symmetry). True, intralocus sexual conflictoccurs when sex-specific selection favors genes that increase fitness in one sex and decrease fitness in the other sex. On the other hand, the positive genetic correlation between male and female
        attractiveness and the negative genetic correlation between male facial attractiveness and female facial masculinity–femininity suggest that alleles influencing variation in these traits are consistently beneficial—or maladaptive—regardless of sex. One mechanism for maintaining genetic variation in the face of such directional selection is mutation-selection
        balance: although some of the alleles affecting these traits are conducive to both sexes’ reproductive success, a constant influx of deleterious mutations is introduced each generation that maintains a degree of maladaptive variation in the population.

        See for example: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/25/2/476

        I can’t say I disagree, as I have noted the exact same thing in prior comments.

        I think there was only some confusion, since we were discussing assortative mating, and it was not clear if you had
        considered that similar phenotypes can have disparate fitness optima depending on sex.

        “I’d dare to say that if it is linked. I’d suggest check out some of the Greg Cochran’s essays:

        http://westhunt.wordpress.com/?s=paternal+age

        Thank you for the informative link.

        I see that where populations are tending to trade off higher mutation loading for greater family resources(implicit of higher paternal ages), there can be notable consequences.

      • @ Tyrion Lannister

        “Do you mean again to women from underdeveloped countries? Anyway, frankly, I do not think you were referring to such women on “evanmarckatz”, since that the conceptual framework in such forums/blogs are mainly our local women”

        Actually, I believe I was, since prospective 3rd world wives were actually the context of the discussion at that time, if I remember correctly.

  16. Pingback: http://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/dating-tips-advice/is-it-you-or-is-it-men/

    “@paragon,

    ‘High mating effort and antisocial and delinquent behaviors are closely linked. Some delinquent behaviors may honestly signal genetic quality. Men who exhibit high mating effort and who have high genetic quality would be expected to engage in more sexual coercion than other men because its costs to them are lowered by female preferences for them as sexual partners’

    Other research suggests the opposite.”

    It appears, then, that there are conflicting studies.

    However, “Good genes, mating effort, and delinquency” is the only one that speaks to ‘actual’ mating frequencies(rather than just things like surveys purporting to measure perceived attractiveness, etc), and is thus the more compelling.

    “Criminal behavior is correlated with low physical attractiveness and if we assume as true the good genes hypothesis, delinquency would be associated with bad genes.”

    Not at all, as characteristic delinquency would lend itself better to any strategy working to maximize the number of potential offspring, given null costs in paternal investment.

    You appear well read, but I would suggest that you either have more reading to do, or your comprehension of the material is lacking.

    “Some of the earliest criminological researchers shared this thinking. Physiognomy persisted throughout the 18th century, most notably in the work of Swiss scholar Johan Casper Lavater, whose influential Physiognomical Fragments appeared in 1775.

    One hundred years later, Italian prison physician Cesare Lombroso published Criminal Man (1876), a famous study that attributed criminal behavior to what he termed “atavism,” an inherited condition that made offenders evolutionary throwbacks to more primitive humans.

    By conducting autopsies on 66 deceased criminals, and comparing 832 living prison inmates with 390 soldiers, Lombroso created a list of physical features that he believed were associated with criminal behavior.

    These “stigmata” included sloping foreheads, asymmetrical faces, large jaws, receding chins, abundant wrinkles, extra fingers, toes, and nipples, long arms, short legs, and excessive body hair-hardly the image of handsome men.

    Harvard anthropologist Earnest A. Hooton conducted an ambitious 12-year study that compared 13,873 male prisoners in 10 states with a haphazard sample of 3,023 men drawn from the general population, searching once more for physical differences.

    Hooton published his findings in The American Criminal and Crime and the Man, both books appearing in 1939.

    The books attributed criminal behavior to biological inferiority and “degeneration,” ascribing a variety of unattractive physical characteristics to criminals (including sloping foreheads, compressed facial features, drooping eyelids, small, protruding ears, projecting cheekbones, narrow jaws, pointy chins, and rounded shoulders).

    By the 1930s, however, biological research was rapidly losing favor, as criminologists increasingly argued that social factors alone cause criminal behavior.

    Hooton’s research was ridiculed in particular, one sociologist dismissing his findings as comically inept in historic proportions (or “the funniest academic performance… since the invention of movable type” [Reuter 1939]).

    Hooton was condemned for his circular reasoning: offenders were assumed to be biologically inferior, so whatever features differentiated criminals from noncriminals were interpreted as indications of biological inferiority.

    Despite the skepticism of many sociologists regarding these attempts to link physical unattractiveness to criminal conduct, self-derogation and general strain theories can explain this relationship.

    Self-derogation theory asserts that youth who are ridiculed by peers lose self-esteem and the motivation to conform (Kaplan 1980).

    General strain theory claims that repeated “noxious,” unwanted interactions produce disappointment, depression, frustration, and anger (Agnew 1992).

    Both theories see delinquency and crime as means of retaliation that boosts one’s self-worth or vents one’s anger.

    Certainly, unattractive youths are prime candidates for noxious ridicule that results in low self-esteem and emotional strain.

    Only a handful of modern studies have tested the relationships among attractiveness, criminal behavior, and perceptions about crime.

    Saladin, Saper, and Breen (1988), for example, asked 28 students in one undergraduate psychology class to judge the physical attractiveness of a group of photographs of young men. Forty students in another psychology class were asked to examine the same photographs and then assess the probability that those pictured would commit either robbery or murder.

    The researchers found that men rated as less attractive also were perceived to be prone to commit future violent crimes, suggesting that unattractive people are more likely to be branded as criminals.

    Another study randomly scrambled 159 photographs of young men incarcerated in juvenile reformatories with 134 photographs of male high school seniors (Cavior and Howard 1973).

    College sophomores in psychology courses were asked to rate the facial attractiveness of these youth.

    Significantly more high school seniors were judged attractive than males from the
    reformatories.

    In the fascinating policy-oriented research that became the basis for the movie Johnny Handsome, surgeons performed plastic surgery to correct deformities and disfigurements (e.g., protruding ears, broken noses, unsightly tattoos, and needle track marks from intravenous drug use) on the faces, hands, and arms of 100 physically unattractive men at the time of their release from Rikers Island jail in New York City (Kurtzberg et al. 1978).

    These ex-convicts were matched against a control group of equally unattractive inmates released from the jail who received no reconstructive surgery.

    When the researchers compared recidivism rates one-year later, those who received the surgery had significantly fewer rearrests.

    Apparently, improved appearance resulted in improved behavior.

    These research findings are preliminary and suggestive; more definitive studies using better measurements are needed. In particular, future research should relate ratings of physical attractiveness to the self-reported criminal behavior of persons taken from the general population.

    Such studies would rule out the possibility that unattractive offenders are more
    likely to appear in jails and reformatories simply due to the prejudices of the police and prosecutors.

    Nevertheless, existing research hints that the folk wisdom dating back to the ancient Greeks may have some basis in reality.

    Physical appearance is related to self-worth and behavior; as the adage goes, “pretty is as pretty does.” When it comes to criminal behavior, the opposite may be true as well”

    “@ Martin Cruz

    ‘However, “Good genes, mating effort, and delinquency” is the only one that speaks to ‘actual’ mating frequencies (rather than just things like surveys purporting to measure perceived attractiveness, etc), and is thus the more compelling.’

    “First, Lalumièrea et al. work with a measure of “self-perceived” mating success. I guess you know that a self-report study is a type of SURVEY”

    Yes, but only the survey I cited speaks anything to mating frequencies.

    “Lombroso observed the physical characteristics of Italian prisoners”

    Prisoners are an unrepresentative sample – the implication is that highly attractive males escape serious reprimand by virtue of their evident genetic quality(inspite of their equally evident delinquency), and consequent *preference* as mates.

    I will agree that criminality is clearly associated with unattractive traits in some significant population of males.

    This population may, in fact, have once been the dominant population amongst male delinquents(and may *still* be).

    But, clearly, there is another population which I am speaking to – and it is this population which I argue is riding the coat-tails of evolutionary success!

    “But it is not necessary to perform sexually coercive tactics /antisocial behaviour if you are physically attractive.”

    It is not a question of necessity, but *advantage*.

    Again, I reiterate: characteristic delinquency would lend itself better to any strategy working to maximize the number of potential offspring, given null costs in paternal investment.

    Males less invested in the accumulation of resources are likewise less beholden to the time/energy costs of those investments – which makes them *ideally* positioned to exploit a lifestyle of strategic delinquency, with optimal fitness gains(assuming they are of evidently high genetic quality).

    And seeing as this ‘delinquent’ strategy represents a fitness optima(in the relevant populations where bi-parental advantage is no longer strongly selected for), it is equally trivial to see how frequencies should follow from evolutionary success – since there is no significant selection pressure for males of high genetic quality to additionally pursue investment strategies, we should expect that(unlike with the case of strategic delinquency) investment strategies should remain uncorrelated with genetic quality over time given their relative high costs and inefficiencies.

    “Moreover Figueredo et al. (2000) applied this framework to address the ultimate causes of adolescent sex offending behavior by proposing a brunswikian bvolutionary developmental (BED) theory, wherein an inability to use mainstream sexual strategies lead an individual to develop deviant sexual strategies. Because some adolescents suffer psychosocial problems and consequent
    competitive disadvantages in the sexual marketplace, sex offending behavior may represent the culmination of a tragic series of failing sexual and social strategies, leading from psychosocial deficiencies to sexual deviance, thence to antisocial deviance, and finally to sexual criminality.”

    Exactly – and given that deviant sexual strategies are most costly for *unattractive* males, we should, if anything, expect this frequency is relatively low(and kept relatively low by selection pressures).

    But, when is a sexual deviant not a deviant?

    When females *condone* it.

    @ Yasmine

    “Nope. It depends of social environments. Non-State societies usually have rewarded such behaviors with success, including reproductive success. But State societies punish young men who act violently on their own initiative.”

    Only if they are held ‘accountable’ – consider the nexus/justification of the popular meme where women are seen to enable their ‘abuse’ at the hands of their preferred mates(bad-boys, et al), and you will better understand the unification of this synthesis.

    “Then, excluded men (lower mate value) become increasingly competitive, becoming more likely to engage in risky, short-term oriented behavior including gambling, drug abuse, and crime. This sort of pattern fits well with the rest of the biological world. Decades of work in behavioral ecology has shown that in species in which there is substantial variation in mating success among males, males compete especially fiercely.”

    Exactly, because such exacting efforts can be taken as evidence of competitive ‘handicapping’ in terms of honest signaling(indicators of high genetic quality, which must resist falsification by proving prohibitively costly to unfit males, so as to selectively cull male frequencies every generation).

    But, of course, I am talking about the *winners* and not the *losers* in this competition, and thus your arguments are making bad assumptions with respect to the male populations under scrutiny(largely addressed in my preceding reply).

    • This commenter above is exactly what I was talking about in the previous post’s comments when I talked about people who self-educate themselves into becoming more idiotic rather than less. In the comments thread I was talking to the commenter Tyrion Lannister and he was talking about some great manosphere commenter, and I said the stuff he was quoting sounded like some moron who read too much evo psych 101 and also swallowed a thesaurus and now couldn’t even make the simplest, common sense observations without pointing a giant word salad consisting of pretentious, overcomplicated evo psych jargon and pseudointellectual gibberish.

      Some people, including Alek Novy, thought I was bashing evo psych, but I’m not. I’m bashing people like the commenter above, who is apparently one of Tyrion Lannister’s online pen pals, who use evo psych combined with overcomplicated jargon to endlessly mentally masturbate online by leaving indecipherable tomes. Even when such people claim to be anti-game, they’re still part of the problem because they have a lot of the pro-game manosphere’s same annoying habits.

      • @ Grizzly

        “Some people, including Alek Novy, thought I was bashing evo psych, but I’m not. I’m bashing people like the commenter above, who is apparently one of Tyrion Lannister’s online pen pals, who use evo psych combined with overcomplicated jargon to endlessly mentally masturbate online by leaving indecipherable tomes. Even when such people claim to be anti-game, they’re still part of the problem because they have a lot of the pro-game manosphere’s same annoying habits.”

        If this is a problem, then it is a PERSONAL problem. It is YOUR problem( because no one else is supporting you on this).

        And that problem is a TRIVIAL one – style over substance is not only a MINOR grievance, but an IRRELEVANT one(which is why it is a logical FALLACY)!

        Especially when dealing with reasonable individuals(such as myself) who are fully prepared to clarify points of confusion.

        But, terminology exists for a REASON, and that reason is to articulate very SPECIFIC ideas in a CONCISE manner(so as to focus the reader’s apprehension), and without AMBIGUITY.

        If you don’t approve of this, then you would do well to IGNORE material that relies upon jargon to convey precise information.

        @ Grizzly

        “like his unproven premise of future evolutionary forces being just as “invariant” as past evolutionary forces.”

        “faulty premises (like his claim about “invariant evolutionary time”).”

        All the more evidence that your grievance(and argument) is entirely rhetorical.

        Not only is this a blatant misrepresentation of what I wrote, but it is INCONSISTENTLY misrepresentative(which suggests a disingenuous motive on your behalf).

        But i think it is EVIDENT, that evolutionary invariance exists in the form of priciples and AXIOMS.

        If this was NOT the case, then scientific inquiry could not have unified a briad evolutionary synthesis through TESTABLE hypotheses!

        • I think Paragon is a bit long winded but that is his style. I think his posts are worth reading as they have a lot of insight. Why do you have to make this a personal attack? If you don’t like his writing style don’t read?

        • Because what he writes is mental masturbation to the worst degree. In some ways it’s even worse than Roissy’s mental masturbation because he throws in a lot of correct information among the misinformation, making it easier to get sucked in. At least with Roissy any half-rational person can surmise easier that he’s full of shit and dismiss him wholesale. Who does all this mental masturbation help? If you don’t want to get laid or are a MGTOW, it’s just pointless. If you do want to get laid, it’s too complicated and overintellectualized to be of any practical use, not to mention all of the fallacious premises mixed in.

          Sure I can just ignore it, but the more you ignore such stuff, the more of them colonize the blog comments. Look how similar commenter Tyrion Lannister then leads to Paragon, each one dropping a pseudointellectual dense wall of text. Imagine if more and more of them keep coming? This place would become as bad as the comments of a Roissysphere blog.

        • @ Paragon,
          ”Yes, but only the survey I cited speaks anything to mating frequencies.”
          I repeat, these “mating frequencies” come from self-reported data, and they are not reliable/verifiable. Furthermore only are reporting their number of partners, not mate value (or physical attractiveness of each female partner, if you prefer).
          “I will agree that criminality is clearly associated with unattractive traits in some significant population of males…]. [ …………But, when is a sexual deviant not a deviant?”When females *condone* it.”
          At least, I appreciate that you start to accept some of the evidence. Well if you wish we address this item from an evolutionary perspective, let me to say that you ar confusing two categories of gene-based evolutionary theories: One is the crime-specific category and another is the cheater-theory (cad vs. dad), also called r/K theory. Crime-specific category explains why people vary in their genetic dispositions toward criminality, pertaining to the offenses of rape, spousal assault/murder, and child abuse neglect. Switching from a long to a short term strategy only requires opportunity. It depends on frequencies of an individual’s pursuing longterm tactics and short-term tactics, and this has nothing to do with delinquency/violence/criminality. So far the scientific evidence tells us that these are two separate phenomena. It is just that less attractive males’ possibilities are constrained to make more long-term mating optimal.
          Most research postulates that delinquency can be the result of a life style adopted due to consistent failures caused by deficits (e.g. males lacking of physical appeal) or in adaptive abilities (e.g. males lacking of social skills) which are basic to success in our environment.
          “Prisoners are an unrepresentative sample – the implication is that highly attractive males escape serious reprimand by virtue of their evident genetic quality(inspite of their equally evident delinquency), and consequent *preference* as mates.”
          Ok, but although this particular study may be excluded, we have the rest of anthropometric research and attractiveness assessment indicating that the average ratings of the criminal population are lower than the control groups.
          “Only if they are held ‘accountable’ – consider the nexus/justification of the popular meme where women are seen to enable their ‘abuse’ at the hands of their preferred mates(bad-boys, et al), and you will better understand the unification of this synthesis.”
          Crime is an independent phenomenon of aesthetic morphology, as I explained above. You should read some writings about the Peter Frost and Gregory Clark models, where they suggest a natural selection against violence occurred in the several centuries before the fall of the Roman Empire. See:
          http://evoandproud.blogspot.com.es/2009/07/genetic-pacification.html
          http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/genetics-and-the-historical-decline-of-violence/
          http://evoandproud.blogspot.com.es/2010/07/roman-state-and-genetic-pacification.html
          http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/clarkfrost-domestication/
          http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/genetics-and-the-historical-decline-of-violence/
          “Exactly, because such exacting efforts can be taken as evidence of competitive ‘handicapping’ in terms of honest signaling(indicators of high genetic quality, which must resist falsification by proving prohibitively costly to unfit males, so as to selectively cull male frequencies every generation). But, of course, I am talking about the *winners* and not the *losers* in this competition, and thus your arguments are making bad assumptions with respect to the male populations under scrutiny(largely addressed in my preceding reply).”
          Mating effort is not an honest sign of anything. As an extension of Zahavi’s hypothesis, Folstad and Karter introduced the immunocompetence signaling hypothesis for humans. This hypothesis suggests that secondary sexual characteristics are reliable indicators of mate quality because the reproductive hormones required for their development, including testosterone, suppress the immune system (e.g., Peters, 2000; Rantala, Vainikka, & Kortet, 2003). The expression of testosterone-linked traits reveals that men are in good enough condition to withstand the deleterious effects of immunosuppression, and women who selected these men as mates would have transmitted features associated with good condition to their offspring.
          But you got stuck in your mind the spurious linkage between beauty and criminal behaviour, and on that basis all your notional reasoning is incorrect, and is neither theoretically coherent nor empirically supported.
          Let me explain. Men adopting a short-term strategy tend to be more physically attractive and sexy. Given a short-term strategy is less likely to work for unattractive males; Sexy cads adopt a long-term strategy that is more likely to produce successful results. It’s not well known the ontogeny of male strategic differences. But the more plausible alternative is that males continuously and unconsciously monitor their ability to succeed in a high mating effort strategy. If so, then we would expect men’s psychology and behavior to track relevant changes. The likelihood of strategic heritable variation is controversial; however, because recombination prevents fortuitous combinations of genes from persisting long enough for polygenic morphs to evolve.A two-strategy system with a binary genetic switch can evolve more easily.
          According to this theory it is believed that a subpopulation of top ranked males (good genes) were evolved with genes that leaned them more toward sexual reproduction with little involvement in the offspring’s care. Their sole purpose was to be sexually active with as many females as possible to spread their genes into as many offspring to ensure their survival.
          But as optimal strategy of women is a long term mating, sexy cads have specialized to exploit different niches, using deception and manipulation, and promising parental investment. Thus this way they are able to gain sexual access in casual sexual interactions, without extra-costs of parental investment; and allowing them to begin a new sexual courtship with other women quickly.
          So these “sexy cads” adopt a “love them-and-leave them” attitude toward mating, and they also possess traits associated with machiavellianism, subclinical psychopathy, and subclinical narcissism (which you’re confusing with criminality, but they are different things). As a result, men who pursue a short-term mating strategy tend to display lower levels of stability, agreeableness, and warmth.
          *I will continue doing some remarks laters. Regards.*

    • @ Paragon,

      REGARDING “Good genes, mating effort, and delinquency”:( Martin L. Lalumière , Vernon L. Quinsey )

      It’s apparent that no amount of evidence will convince you of the reality here, so it seems you will continue to grasp at ever more distant straws to confirm your beliefs. That, and ignore most of facts & studies altogether, except the only one (lalumiere et al) that fits with your guesswork. Pretty much hit the nail on the head trying to develop a phylogenetic theory based on that one single paper (and with a wrong methodology). Evidence tells us that morphology & criminal behaviour are two independent phenomena and are not inter-related.

      First, the morphometric studies does not prove an association between physical attractiveness and crimianl behaviour, rather it’s the opposite.What you have hypothesized would need to find a linkage between alleles for “criminal behaviour” and variation in facial morphology.

      A wealth of twin and adoption studies confirms that individual differences in violent/antisocial behavior are heritable, moreover it is unlikely that genes directly code for violence; rather, allelic variation is responsible for individual differences in neurocognitive functioning that, in turn, may determine differential predisposition to violent behavior. By example, genes regulating serotonergic neurotransmission, in particular monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), have been highlighted in the search for a genetic predisposition to violence. And we know the association between delinquency and the TaqI polymorphism in the DRD2 gene and the 40-bp VNTR in the DAT1 gene. This much-vaunted example of nature–nurture interaction leads one to expect that genetic predisposition alone may be of little consequence for behavior in favorable conditions. And the data obtained for phenotyping of facial shape features have identified five independent genetic loci associated with different facial phenotypes:PRDM16, PAX3, TP63, C5orf50, and COL17A1—in the determination of the human face.

      Genetics and environmental factors are so intertwined, that it seems impossible to separate them in explaining how people are caused to engage in criminal acts

      So this would be our real framework:

      genotype 1(physical attractiveness) + genotype A ( criminal behaviour tendency) X environment interaction favorable = attractive male without criminal
      behaviour.

      genotype 1(physical attractiveness) + genotype A ( criminal behaviour tendency) X environment interaction unfavorable = attractive male with criminal
      behaviour.

      genotype 1 (attractiveness) + genotype B (non-criminal behaviour)= attractive male without criminal behaviour.

      genotype 2 (unattractiveness) + genotype A (criminal behaviour) X environment interaction favorable= unattractive male with non-criminal behaviour.

      genotype 2 (unattractiveness) + genotype A (criminal behaviour) X environment interaction unfavorable= unattractive male with criminal behaviour.

      genotype 2 (unattractiveness) + genotype B (non-criminal behaviour)= unattractive male with non-criminal behaviour.

      The data obtained for phenotyping of facial shape features have identified five independent genetic loci associated with different facial phenotypes:—PRDM16, PAX3, TP63, C5orf50, and COL17A1—in the determination of the human face. Genetics and environmental factors are so intertwined, that it seems impossible to separate them in explaining how people are caused to engage in criminal acts. I do not see any reason to revoke a speculative hypothesis, which should be found some underlying mechanism of pleiotropy with the effect of some gene on pathways that contribute to these two different phenotypes.

      • @ Tyrion Lannister,

        “I feel the delay, I’m not used to enter on here often. But accidentally I saw your comments today. I was also banned by evanmarckatz.

        Regarding Self-seeking like Hypothesis (Liliana Alvarez):

        Firt, I do not understand how you try to support this hypothesis when yourself argued time ago against it on this site:

        https://web.archive.org/web/20121028045744/http://www.seductionmyth.com/reality_check/her-type/

        Second, why allow speculation to reign when we can just look at the evidence? Of course, one has to always keep in mind the totality of the evidence, not just one poor example like that. Always be wary of small samples. That’s why I try to use/look meta-analyses or studies with very large samples whenever possible. Indeed, always check your confidence intervals! And let’s not forget about our friend Occam’s Razor. Keep in mind that if really could be found a wide population correlation, that doesn’t necessarily mean causation (preference for similar opposite-sex faces). And a valid research should look at the effect of resemble preferences in mating by looking at the phenotypic correlation between spouses of twins and their co-twins, for example. That study works with a small sample size (36 randomly selected couples): is not a valid representation of the population. And Incorrect methods: Lack of validation of subjective assessments: the test subjects (over 100 volunteers) had to assign each of the photographs of female target subjects to one of the males.

        Furthermore, the appropriate methodology would be to run a morphometric study of a wide sample size of real couples for the purpose of developing a more scientific and aesthetic guide that helps facial evaluation. At least basic facial landmarks (Mainly Sn: subnasale Al: alaree Gn: gnathion and Go: gonion, so on) . A multivariate analysis of covariance should be undertaken to detect significant differences in facial morphometry between mates.”

        I should clarify that you are correct.

        The study I cited references an unrepresentative sample, using unsound methodology.

        If I were to venture an explanation for any non- random effects in this study, it would be to propose some subset of males where Self-seeking strategies are learned behaviors borne out of spurious notions in conflating symmetry between sexes.

        A defect of reasoning.

        “A low mate value. Inter-individual variability with regard to the question of which traits are perceived as attractive/beautiful to what degree and which are in demand while choosing a mate, are easily explained basing on market value theory as a sexual partner. Women of above-average attractiveness need to make fewer compromises with regard to mate selection than women who are less attractive, by waiving the sexual attractiveness of their partners in favor of parental invesment – or viceversa. Women of above-average beauty in the market for mates can afford to raise their personal standards
        with regard to both aspects, and therefore, their aesthetic cognitions are more critical concerning masculine sex appeal (Buss and Shackelford [2008]).”

        It sounds like a compromise borne out of low mate value, moreso on the female part.

        “Yes you are right if we we rely on “sexually dimorphic” traits, (leaving aside “averageness / prototypicality” and bilateral symmetry). True, intralocus sexual conflictoccurs when sex-specific selection favors genes that increase fitness in one sex and decrease fitness in the other sex. On the other hand, the positive genetic correlation between male and female
        attractiveness and the negative genetic correlation between male facial attractiveness and female facial masculinity–femininity suggest that alleles influencing variation in these traits are consistently beneficial—or maladaptive—regardless of sex. One mechanism for maintaining genetic variation in the face of such directional selection is mutation-selection
        balance: although some of the alleles affecting these traits are conducive to both sexes’ reproductive success, a constant influx of deleterious mutations is introduced each generation that maintains a degree of maladaptive variation in the population.

        See for example: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/25/2/476

        I can’t say I disagree, as I have noted the exact same thing in prior comments.

        I think there was only some confusion, since we were discussing assortative mating, and it was not clear if you had
        considered that similar phenotypes can have disparate fitness optima depending on sex.

        “I’d dare to say that if it is linked. I’d suggest check out some of the Greg Cochran’s essays:

        http://westhunt.wordpress.com/?s=paternal+age

        Thank you for the informative link.

        I see that where populations are tending to trade off higher mutation loading for greater family resources(implicit of higher paternal ages), there can be notable consequences.

        “Do you mean again to women from underdeveloped countries? Anyway, frankly, I do not think you were referring to such women on “evanmarckatz”, since that the conceptual framework in such forums/blogs are mainly our local women”

        Actually, I believe I was, since prospective 3rd world wives were actually the context of the discussion at that time, if I remember correctly.

        “Mating effort is not an honest sign of anything. As an extension of Zahavi’s hypothesis, Folstad and Karter introduced the immunocompetence signaling hypothesis for humans.”

        I am not speaking to mating effort, per se.

        I would argue that sexual aggression is a male secondary sexual characteristic(phenotypes operate on the behavioral axis as well).

        The costs of display are too high to be borne in success by all but males of sufficient genetic quality.

        I will concede to you – at this point, anti-social tendencies cannot be taken as speaking to genetic quality, in the general case.

        But, there is clearly some subset of genetically attractive males from whom sexually coercive behavior is advantageous, in terms of netting higher mating success(and thus, in evidence of their high genetic quality).

        I have only delineated how strategic tendencies in sexual coercion can gain traction in the fitness landscape, given
        favorable conditions where females enable such behaviors in genetically favored males(passively selecting for them) – a notion which is, increasingly, non controversial, especially in the manosphere.

        If frequencies follow from evolutionary success, and tendencies in sexual coercion correlate strongly with other anti-social behaviors which predispose criminality, I think the implications are clear.

        Admittedly, a highly speculative tangent.

      • @ Tyrion Lannister

        “Mating effort is not an honest sign of anything. As an extension of Zahavi’s hypothesis, Folstad and Karter introduced the immunocompetence signaling hypothesis for humans.”

        I am not speaking to mating effort, per se.

        I would argue that sexual aggression is a male secondary sexual characteristic(phenotypes operate on the behavioral axis as well).

        The costs of display are too high to be borne in success by all but males of sufficient genetic quality.

        I will concede to you – at this point, anti-social tendencies cannot be taken as speaking to genetic quality, in the general case.

        But, there is clearly some subset of genetically attractive males from whom sexually coercive behavior is advantageous, in terms of netting higher mating success(and thus, in evidence of their high genetic quality).

        I have only delineated how strategic tendencies in sexual coercion can gain traction in the fitness landscape, given
        favorable conditions where females enable such behaviors in genetically favored males(passively selecting for them) – a notion which is, increasingly, non controversial, especially in the manosphere.

        If frequencies follow from evolutionary success, and tendencies in sexual coercion correlate strongly with other anti-social behaviors which predispose criminality, I think the implications are clear.

        Admittedly, a highly speculative tangent.

      • @ Tyrion Lannister

        “What you have hypothesized would need to find a linkage between alleles for “criminal behaviour” and variation in facial morphology.”

        How about a relationship between testosterone, body-composition, bone structure, and sexual aggression?

  17. “Eventually, however, this dynamic will become unsustainable, only to resolve to stability over evolutionary time(where we should expect that the same invariant evolutionary forces that acted upon small populations in the past – tending to
    constrain female choice – will likewise hold, and reassert themselves in the future)”

    To further clarify, by this, I mean to say that any neurological adaptations that excessively narrow female sexual choices will prove MALADAPTIVE(focusing downwards selective pressure over time) in any ecological setting that favors bi-parental advantage(in offspring success).

    This will have the effect of reducing/limiting behaviors that tend to handicap offspring success(such as favoring short term mating interactions over the
    security of paternal investments, and other quantities of long term value).

    True, such a setting does not prevail at the moment in developed Western populations.

    But, it is likely only a matter of time.

    • Paragon, why can’t you just write more clearly? You SEEM to have interesting ideas, but its hard to tell.

      I can’t believe any of these ideas can’t be explained using simple, elegant, English. I’m sure you know what Orwell wrote about people who use these kinds of scientistic euphemisms to discuss concepts that can be explained using simple English. I think he’s write.

      For instance – ” neurological adaptations that excessively narrow female sexual choices will prove MALADAPTIVE(focusing downwards selective pressure over time) in any ecological setting that favors bi-parental advantage(in offspring success).”

      What is wrong that you cannot express those ideas in non-jargon English, simple, elegant, and clear?

      Why not say ” women who evolved to be too picky” instead of “neurological adaptations that excessively narrow female sexual choices” – how can you not be aware that the second sentence impedes discussion and is pointlessly jargony?

      Why not say ” such genes will tend to get weeded out” rather than “focusing downwards selective pressure over time”?

      Instead of “in any ecological setting that favors bi-parental advantage(in offspring success” why not say “in any setting where having two parents helps the child survive” (“ecological” is redundant here, also)?

      Instead of “This will have the effect of reducing/limiting behaviors that tend to handicap offspring success(such as favoring short term mating interactions over the security of paternal investments, and other quantities of long term value).” why not say “since this is the case, this will result in women evolving to consider factors that will help her get a man who will stay and invest in the offspring and will have the resources to do so, rather than simply focus on short-term mating?”

      Your needless jargon doesn’t make you sound more authoritative, but just degrades the intellectual tone.

      • EXACTLY. This is the EXACT point I was trying to make earlier. So it seems others DO back me up on this Paragon. Sorry to disappoint.

        Again, this is what I mean about people educating themselves yet somehow sounding more ridiculous. Almost every sentence Paragon and Tyrion Lannister use can easily be rephrased in plain, simple English and become instantly clearer. Instead they try to use the most jargony Evo psych terms and the effect is the opposite of what they’re intending. It makes them look LESS intelligent.

      • “Why not say ‘women who evolved to be too picky” instead of “neurological adaptations that excessively narrow female sexual choices'”

        Because the latter is more information dense, where the former is NOT a corollary(at best it is a rough paraphrase that fails to capture the precise meaning of the formal text).

        But, evidently, paraphrasing is unnecessary, as you appear to have little difficulty in making those interpretations(sparing me the additional work).

        So, again, I fail to see any pressing concern.

  18. Information density is not necessarily a virtue. The trick lies in selection not just packing in as much information as you can. In this case you don’t have to say that the mechanism is a “neurological adaption”. It’s not relevant. And its not always about informational density – “excessively narrow female sexual choices” does not contain more information than “she is too picky”. Sometimes you’re just convoluted for no good reason at all.

    The point is the way you write makes it hard to follow and understand you. Most people can do it, sure, but it’s a serious effort. For myself I usually only half-understand you unless I make a serious effort, and then I find that the informational density that so impedes easy comprehension adds nothing, and that a lot of the time its just pointlessly convoluted without even any gain in information density.

    It’s a shame, because you seem to have interesting things to say. I suspect you think it makes you sound more authoritative, and to some people it might, but not to anyone intelligent. Or you do it because the ideas sound rather simple if expressed using simple English and you want to make them sound more impressive and complex – but simple ideas are the most impressive and powerful. Only losers like Roissy think complex and flashy language is impressive. You gotta choose your audience.

    • “In this case you don’t have to say that the mechanism is a “neurological adaption”. It’s not relevant.”

      But, it could be. And experience has shown that details such as this frequently does become relevant in the course of online debates – which is why I make provision for it.

      “And its not always about informational density – “excessively narrow female sexual choices” does not contain more information than “she is too picky”.”

      You are wrong – given the preceding context(of neurological adaptations) this phrase makes no sense, as I am trying to describe the functional nature of these adaptations(in narrowing female sexual choices).

      “I suspect you think it makes you sound more authoritative”

      Then you suspect wrong.

      But this is just another fallacious appeal to motive.

      I have already explained my reasoning for adopting a largely formal writing style.

      And while I will admit that my writing style is far from perfect, and errs on the side of verbosity, this seems a minor grievance, and out of proportion to the criticism it receives from individual detractors(which suggests a concern for style over substance).

      “Only losers like Roissy think complex and flashy language is impressive. ”

      Why do you care what Roissy thinks?

      How is that relevant?

      The basis of my arguments are not rhetorical, and I am NOT Roissy – so the analogy you are attempting to relate is a faulty one.

  19. @ George

    “Men never evolved to chase women, and women never evolved to be super-selective because women almost never did the selecting.”

    Your statement is fallacious and strangely PRO-FEMINIST.

    But, more than this, it displays an appalling ignorance for ANY scientific theory of sexual evolution.

    “Parents did it for them or the strongest male just took what he wanted. Female choice was always, by necessity, the lesser factor, especially so the further back you go.”

    It occurs that you are drawing faulty inference from a literal interpretation of the term ‘female choice’ – which is actually an evolutionary ‘idiom’.

    In actuality, ‘female choice’ is meant to imply the effects of female sexual preference in focusing selection pressures against male breeding success(allowing evolution to opportunistically cull male frequencies every generation).

    And there are many subtle(and not so subtle) ways that females can express these ‘choices’, directing selection by manipulating conditions of relative competitive advantage between males(according to their preference).

    Indeed, women have evolved their characteristically/strategically passive aggressive and duplicitous natures in serving this goal.

    “It explains why women rely on social cues and non-sexual factors for mate selection far more than men.”

    Isn’t this EXACTLY what Game claims, lol?

    But, there is so much contravening evidence to your assumption(in women being LESS biased towards physical traits in their selection process) that I don’t even know where to begin.

    So, let’s start with sexual evolution: which observes selection bias in the evolution of dimorphic traits.

    Namely, the observable fact that men and women are objectively, and morphologically, differentiable, tells us that selection pressures(inclusive of sexual selection pressures) have(and are PERSISTING) to act upon them in VERY different ways.

    And in ALL domains of observable differentiation(including PHYSICAL traits).

    Inquiry has further shown that the reproductively limiting morph will be the one that evolved to be more selective in all domains of mate choice.

    In homo-sapiens, this morph is FEMALE!

    Lets then move on to the numerous experimental results, personal observations, etc, etc(ad nauseum, if you prefer), which support this.

    In summary: EVERY sound study, experiment, and theoretical model CONTRADICTS what you are supposing.

  20. @Paragon

    Yeah, I’ve heard that position described as pro-feminist, but not every element in the feminist position is factually wrong. For instance it is a fact that women got the vote in democratic countries much later the men did. However much this fits the feminist narrative of patriarchal oppression, it’s true whether you like it or not.

    As for my claim that female choice was historically a minor factor (please note ;not an absent factor, just a minor one), it can be interpreted in a pro-feminist way as one more example of patriarchal oppression or can be interpreted as countering the game narrative that everything men do is to please women. Personally, I find the game narrative infinitely more pernicious, infinitely more objectively pro-feminist agenda in its pernicious male-denigrating modern form, and infinitely more demeaning of men and elevating of women. I am much less worried about playing into the hands of some feminists by admitting the fact that in some ways women were historically oppressed, which I would think is scarcely open to doubt, than I am by letting the truly grotesque and absurd game narrative where men feature as little more than servitors of female pleasure go uncontested. Interestingly, the game narrative is the EXACT reversal of the classic model of the male-female relationship, where it is women who feature as little more than servitors of male sexual pleasure. It’s just flipping the classic model on its head.

    Just as game is supposedly anti-feminist but actually an extreme form of grotesque woman worship (that would be inconceivable outside of the modern West), denial of past male oppression of women is supposedly anti-feminist but is increasingly being used as part of the narrative that elevates women over men. The “proper” position of men is being redefined as servitors of women, and history is being re-written to support this as having always been so.

    What’s fascinating is the peculiarly insidious character of the feminist element in modern Western culture – it has this disturbing protean ability to take over almost any idea from the inside.

    Unlike many armchair evolutionary psychologists, I have spent over a decade living and working in traditional non-Western countries, in Asia and elsewhere, so I have a real life, ground level, un-theoretical, view of the position of women in countries blissfully free of the Western tradition of woman worship, which began in the Middle Ages with its cult of the “lady”, and reached its peak (lets hope) in the grotesque woman-worship of the modern West as exemplified in things like game. I am able to see the modern Western pattern as the bizarre historical anomaly that it is and not some reflection of timeless human nature, whatever evolutionary psychology says.

    As to your theories about evolutionary psychology its funny to me that you complain that my theory fits none of the standard theories – my answer is, yeah, so what? Ever heard of thinking outside the box, like, for yourself? Evolutionary psychology is a speculative discipline more akin to literature or philosophy than a hard science, so your reverence for standard theories seems a bit absurd.

    You’re mis-using “scientific theory” here – a scientific theory is a theory about the world that has received some support after being subjected to the scientific method. Evolutionary psychology is just theory.

    It can be fun to bandy about theories as long we understand we aren’t practicing science and remember that the human craving for coherent narratives tacked on at the end, often at the expense of truth or accuracy, is full of cognitive biases. It would be ridiculous to consider evolutionary psychology as anything more than a fun game for intellectuals that by its very nature can never receive verification (because we don’t have time machines). Not that fun games don’t have their purpose.

    If evo-psyche had arose in East Asia rather than the West, it would have completely different “narratives” to fit its cultural and cognitive biases and patterns. We would be treated to “scientific” treatises and “studies” explaining why women prefer skinny, epicene men with little muscle and an almost feminine level of interest in fashion, with a soft demeanor, kindness, and respect for social conventions, and how this is rooted in evolution. Instead evo-pscyhe seems to have “shown” , peculiarly and astonishingly, that the late Western Romantic notion of the sexy male that arose in post-Englightenment Europe as a rebel against social conventions, and as dark and brooding, and as large and muscular, has its roots in evolution. How peculiar!

    I agree with you 100% that females were able to use subtle pressures to exercise mate choice, which is why I said female choice wasn’t an absent factor just a minor one. It’s obvious that females do have some sexual preferences and that had to have come from somewhere.

    Game claims that certain behaviors trigger sexual desire in women. I am claiming rather the opposite – that since female choice was a minor factor women have less of an innate sexual preference and have no choice but to rely on outside cues more than men in the absence of strong internal signals. I mean things like women often care more than men what their friends think, if the man is the same race as them, if he is popular, if he is the type of man who fits the social ideal in that woman’s particular society (for instance in Thailand the most attractive men are considered pale-skinned, nerdy, glasses-wearing, Chinese men with little muscle tone, in fact muscle tone is disliked. Large muscles are also disliked in Japan, where epicene men are also preferred on a “purely” sexual level. Male gigolos in Asia are highly epicene. While in America, at least for women at the middle to lower end of the socio-economic scale, the most desired men are large, bronzed, heavy muscled, and not particularly intellectual). Since these things vary from society to society and even from generation to generation its clear that much of female preference does not have a timeless invariant evolutionary basis. Or perhaps the invariant element is to rely on social cues in the absence of strong internal signals. Which is saying the same thing.

    “Namely, the observable fact that men and women are objectively, and morphologically, differentiable, tells us that selection pressures(inclusive of sexual selection pressures) have(and are PERSISTING) to act upon them in VERY different ways.

    Of course – but who says this selection pressure HAS to be largely female selection pressure? The selection pressure could easily be PARENTAL choice.

    “Inquiry has further shown that the reproductively limiting morph will be the one that evolved to be more selective in all domains of mate choice”

    Nice try, there. Pretty slick but not so fast. “Inquiry has shown”? What you mean is that “theorists have decided”. You’ve just moved from observable fact to theory. In some animals the females are more picky, in others not. Animals vary and what is true of animals is hardly always true of humans. But it’s worse than that! We have a THEORY that the “morph” (shudder – now you got me thinking of girls as “morphs”) with more investment SHOULD be more picky, because it “makes sense”. But here’s another theory – PARENTS could have been more picky on behalf of their daughters. Nature could have utilized the strong man taking who he wanted as a selection pressure. That the “morph” with more investment should have evolved to be more picky is just ONE pathway through which nature could have achieved her goal, and history shows it isn’t the LIKELY one. Theories, shmeories!

    “Lets then move on to the numerous experimental results, personal observations, etc, etc(ad nauseum, if you prefer), which support this.”

    Yeah, lets do that. Which studies and experiments have shown that the selection pressures in ancient times were female choice rather than parental choice or male coercion? How COULD a study show that? Not to mention the ubiquity of poorly designed studies with ambiguous results that are often gerrymandered – a growing problem not only in the social sciences, where recent “inquiries” have shown that maybe as many as 90% of studies are non-replicable, but the hard sciences as well.

    “In summary: EVERY sound study, experiment, and theoretical model CONTRADICTS what you are supposing.”

    Sure, buddy. “Sound theoretical model”. I prefer the real world.

    • George – Wonderful stuff. Clearly written, easy to follow, well thought out, great linear progression of ideas. I agree with all of it.

      If you ever had a blog, I would gladly read it. Where else, if anywhere, do you comment?

  21. Thanks, Grizzly. I don’t have a blog or comment regularly anywhere, except every now and then when I feel compelled to do so. If I ever do get a blog (unlikely) I’m sure I’ll link to it.

  22. @ George

    “Yeah, I’ve heard that position described as pro-feminist, but not every element in the feminist position is factually wrong.

    For instance it is a fact that women got the vote in democratic countries much later the men did. However much this fits the feminist narrative of patriarchal oppression, it’s true whether you like it or not.”

    And I could care less.

    “As for my claim that female choice was historically a minor factor (please note ;not an absent factor, just a minor one), it can be interpreted in a pro-feminist way as one more example of patriarchal oppression or can be interpreted as countering the game narrative that everything men do is to please women.”

    That is not a game ‘narrative’.

    If it means to imply that males who fail to entice a female into mating are evolutionary dead-ends(and thus have evolved adaptive tendencies towards such enticement), it is not a ‘narrative’- it is objective reality.

    Whether YOU like it or not.

    “Personally, I find the game narrative infinitely more pernicious, infinitely more objectively pro-feminist agenda in its pernicious male-denigrating modern form, and infinitely more demeaning of men and elevating of women. I am much less worried about playing into the hands of some feminists by admitting the fact that in some ways women were historically oppressed, which I would think is scarcely open to doubt, than I am by letting the truly grotesque and absurd game narrative where men feature as little more than servitors of female pleasure go uncontested. Interestingly, the game narrative is the EXACT reversal of the classic model of the male-female relationship, where it is women who feature as little more than servitors of male sexual pleasure. It’s just flipping the classic model on its head.”

    The classical ‘model’?

    What is the basis of such a model that we should consider it reliable?

    “Unlike many armchair evolutionary psychologists, I have spent over a decade living and working in traditional non-Western countries, in Asia and elsewhere, so I have a real life, ground level, un-theoretical, view of the position of women in
    countries blissfully free of the Western tradition of woman worship, which began in the Middle Ages with its cult of the “lady”, and reached its peak (lets hope) in the grotesque woman-worship of the modern West as exemplified in things like
    game. I am able to see the modern Western pattern as the bizarre historical anomaly that it is and not some reflection of timeless human nature, whatever evolutionary psychology says.”

    I live in Asia.

    It is a different population, ergo females have evolved in response to those differences.

    Having said that, females who enjoy the same economic freedoms as the west, enjoy the same sexual latitude, and correspondingly narrow sexual choices(along with the same positions of privilege and advantage that they exploit through their limited sexual availability).

    “Evolutionary psychology is a speculative discipline more akin to literature or philosophy than a hard science, so your reverence for standard theories seems a bit absurd.”

    You couldn’t be more wrong.

    My arguments do not follow from evolutionary ‘psychology’, but rather inference from an established synthesis of scientific inquiry.

    But,it occurs that you don’t really understand what a scientific theory entails.

    “You’re mis-using “scientific theory” here – a scientific theory is a theory about the world that has received some support after being subjected to the scientific method. Evolutionary psychology is just theory.”

    The theory of gravity, is also just a theory, lol.

    You really don’t know what a scientific theory is, do you?

    The theory of Evolution meets the standards of any other scientific field of knowledge – namely it is falsifiable, and verifiable.

    That it’s broad synthesis is not subject to a singular feat of deductive reasoning is irrelevant to the accepted value of scientific inquiry, and investigation.

    The difference between your arguments and mine, is that mine have a basis in knowledge and science.

    While yours find their basis in emotional investment and personal agenda.

    Which do you think will prove more compelling to the objective observer?

    “If evo-psyche had arose in East Asia rather than the West, it would have completely different “narratives” to fit its cultural and cognitive biases and patterns. We would be treated to “scientific” treatises and “studies” explaining why women prefer skinny, epicene men with little muscle and an almost feminine level of interest in fashion, with a soft demeanor, kindness, and respect for social conventions, and how this is rooted in evolution. Instead evo-pscyhe seems to have “shown” , peculiarly and astonishingly, that the late Western Romantic notion of the sexy male that arose in post-Englightenment Europe as a rebel against social conventions, and as dark and brooding, and as large and muscular, has its roots in evolution. How peculiar!”

    Obviously you never considered chance and opportunity:

    http://ccr.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/04/24/1069397108317672

    As you can see, the mate preferences of Asian women(as ALL women) tend to change given different CHOICES.

    And this becomes evident to anyone who has actually bothered to observe Asian females with any degree of non-trivial scrutiny.

    If you have failed to notice this, then I don’t know what Asia you have been observing, but it is not the same Asia as myself.

    “Game claims that certain behaviors trigger sexual desire in women. I am claiming rather the opposite – that since female choice was a minor factor women have less of an innate sexual preference and have no choice but to rely on outside cues more than men in the absence of strong internal signals.”

    You can claim whatever you want, but in this case your false premise is leading you to a false conclusion.

    “I mean things like women often care more than men what their friends think, if the man is the same race as them, if he is popular, if he is the type of man who fits the social ideal in that woman’s particular society”

    Because this all FOLLOWS from a collectively narrow monolith in shared female mate preference.

    Males, on the other hand, have very broad preferences, and thus tend not to split many hairs.

    “Since these things vary from society to society and even from generation to generation its clear that much of female preference does not have a timeless invariant evolutionary basis.”

    Perhaps these are populations where sufficient conflicting economic pressures work to broaden female choices.

    And perhaps these are DIFFERENT populations, with a different magnitude of trait values, and thus DIFFERENT opportunities in the expression of choice.

    “Of course – but who says this selection pressure HAS to be largely female selection pressure? The selection pressure could easily be PARENTAL choice.”

    If the determinant selection pressure was Parental choice(if I am understanding your ridiculous term correctly), then women would be getting their gina tingles from parental approval.

    Also, you are greatly underestimating the influence that prospective brides were able to exert over these outcomes.

    “Nice try, there. Pretty slick but not so fast. “Inquiry has shown”? What you mean is that “theorists have decided”.

    Actually, no.

    I mean, science has SHOWN.

    Again, you don’t understand science, or logic, or evolution, or… much of anything with a sound basis in observing a true state of nature.

    So, best to reserve your criticisms to topics more amenable to your apprehension.

    “In some animals the females are more picky, in others not.”

    Invariably, the rate limiting morph is the choosier.

    And in humans, that morph is female.

    ” But here’s another theory – PARENTS could have been more picky on behalf of their daughters.”

    Please, no more lectures on your fantastical speculations concerning ‘parental choice’.

    They’re killing me.

    “Nature could have utilized the strong man taking who he wanted as a selection pressure.”

    It has, and it did.

    But, we are talking about the evolutionary nexus of female mate preference.

    And, in order for sexual captivity to occur(and pose fitness trials), it must imply(and maintain) some measure of sexual conflict between female preference and undesirable mates(ergo, it CANNOT be used as an explanation for
    tendencies in female mate preference when it is implicitly CONFLICTED with those preferences).

    “That the “morph” with more investment should have evolved to be more picky is just ONE pathway through which nature could have achieved her goal, and history shows it isn’t the LIKELY one.”

    What history are YOU reading(not the same as the rest of us)?

    “Yeah, lets do that. Which studies and experiments have shown that the selection pressures in ancient times were female choice rather than parental choice or male coercion? How COULD a study show that?”

    We don’t need studies to show that – we can rely upon logical inference from what we understand of evolutionary systems, in rendering the closest agreement to our testable observations.

    But, we’re talking about the nexus of female mate preference(remember?), which CANNOT be the consequence of ‘parental choice’ or sexual captivity(as I have already explained).

    And if you don’t think physical attractiveness is a strong consideration/concern in female mate choice, then consider this:

    http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/05/07/why-you-should-lie-in-your-online-dating-profile/

    “Not to mention the ubiquity of poorly designed studies with ambiguous results that are often gerrymandered – a growing problem not only in the social sciences”

    Evolution is not a social science.

    But, feminism is.

    Hmmm.

    “Sure, buddy. “Sound theoretical model”. I prefer the real world.”

    Your world is about as ‘real’ as reality television.

    But, I take it you are quite done flogging what remains of your credibility?

    • @ Paragon,

      I’ve come this thread casually, @Tyrion linked to that post in his own blog:

      https://sirtyrionlannister.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/chicks-dig-jerks/

      You had debated him here about a year, great debate. On his own post it seems as finally he easily won, and I wondered maybe he would want to remind people of your defeat, when I checked it I thought he’d deleted your final reply to try and make himself look like the winner. But I’ve noticed that you did not attempt to reply to his latest “challenge” on the original thread. Why did you refuse to reply to his last comments? defeated without arguments?

  23. “That is not a game ‘narrative’.

    If it means to imply that males who fail to entice a female into mating are evolutionary dead-ends(and thus have evolved adaptive tendencies towards such enticement), it is not a ‘narrative’- it is objective reality.

    Whether YOU like it or not.”

    You’re just making the same mistake again. it’s like you’re wearing blinders.

    I prefer to think that males who failed to entice the PARENTS of females into finding them suitable matches were evolutionary dead ends, and further back, males that failed to develop the necessary physical prowess in intra-male competition that would allow them to select communally available women were evolutionary dead ends, and that communities of males who failed to develop into successful war parties were evolutionary dead ends.

    You fail to acknowledge, Paragon, just how much human mating took place as the result of men raiding in warfare other communities and simply taking women against their will. Said women had absolutely no say in the matter whatsoever and sadly, their highly evolved incredible pickiness in men simply didn’t matter.

    Against your theory of female pickiness as the decisive selection pressure, I posit 3 alternative pathways for selection pressure that are more likely to have been decisive, none of which involve female choice; communal success in warfare, individual prowess in intra-male competition, and parental choice.

    Female mate choice is a distant fourth.

    Indeed, are you aware Paragon, that until recently it was thought that females preferred high masculinity men, but once it was discovered that, in fact, women seem to prefer more feminine men, that theory was discarded, and it is now thought that high masculinity is not a sexual preference of women but confers an advantage in intra-male competition. This is an excellent example of the selection pressure for a male trait NOT being female preference but intra-male competition, by the very people who elevate female preference as the primary selection pressure for male traits! Maybe I should be pleased that evo-psyche theories seem to be getting more sophisticated as they move away from their obsession with female pickiness?

    The distinctive contribution of game is not merely that it – arbitrarily – elevates female choice into the most important selective pressure, against the historical record and perhaps even common sense, but that it defines all male activities as existing for the purpose of attracting females, when this is a complete misunderstanding of how selection works and is an impermissible introduction of teleological thinking into the blind workings of evolution. Any trait that conferred an advantage in finding a mate would obviously have been selected to survive into the next generation through a completely blind process; this doesn’t mean that trait has no meaning to its possessor other than its utility in finding a mate (and its utility in finding a mate might have nothing to do with “attracting women”. It might have had to do with being successful in intra-male competition or in pleasing parents) or that it came into being “in order to” attract women. That trait might well be a source of satisfaction or pleasure to its possessor completely despite the fact that blind selection pressures made sure that it was passed on to future generations.

    So the game narrative conflates ” utility in acquiring a mate” with “attracting a woman” when the utility might have lain in pleasing parents or intimidating other men.

    I’m sure you “don’t care” about any of this.

    “It is a different population, ergo females have evolved in response to those differences.”

    Well, well! Doesn’t evo-psyche say that all human sexual preferences were molded in pre-historic times before humans split off into distinctive cultures and civilizations and are thus invariant across all human populations? Supposedly we all carry the exact same genes from 40,000 years ago, right? You seem to be suggesting now that the specific HISTORICAL experiences of Asians might have led them to have faced different sexual selection pressures – or are you saying the harsh pre-historic conditions of paleolithic Asia favored epicene men with an interest in fashion?

    Either way, evo-psyche must then acknowledge that sexual preferences are not invariant across ethnic groups, and this opens the door to ALL KINDS of selection pressures not involving female choice being operative.

    The more selective pressures were tailored to ethnic group, the more variety there is, the more likely non-female-choice selection pressures were at work.

    “Having said that, females who enjoy the same economic freedoms as the west, enjoy the same sexual latitude, and correspondingly narrow sexual choices(along with the same positions of privilege and advantage that they exploit through their limited sexual availability).”

    “Limited sexual availability” – In Asia? Don’t make me laugh. First of all the culture of prostitution is firmly entrenched and widely accepted in Asia, making females of all levels of beauty easily available to practically every single man. Secondly, no one seems to have informed these women of their ability to be extremely picky because of their limited availability as Asian women in heavy numbers resort to male karaoke parlors where they pay literal fortunes to receive attention, and sometimes sex which the men bestow or withold as they see fit after the women ask for it, from low-status males. Check out this fascinating movie about the phenomenon in Japan “The Great Happiness Space” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxCIHtbkIwU

    It’s also on netflix. In fact, females utilizing male prostitutes is almost as common as men doing the reverse in Asia, suggesting how in non-Western countries women haven’t been informed about their incredible power on the sexual market.

    Even if this were true, females might be more picky simply because they have a weaker internal sexual signal, so for sex to be worthwhile a higher criteria has to to be met. Even if greater female pickiness were a fact rooted in biology – which I doubt very much – it doesn’ t follow that men evolved to satisfy female pickiness (rather than their parents, etc), and that men evolved to chase women. As I said, it could simply be an epiphenomenon of women having weaker internal sexual signals.

    “My arguments do not follow from evolutionary ‘psychology’, but rather inference from an established synthesis of scientific inquiry.”

    Scientific inquiry simply reveals patterns and regularities in data. All it can tell us is how women behave NOW. From this we theorize backwards, and we have no way of really knowing if our theory is correct. In fact theories to explain the same phenomena change all the time. Theories come and go. They are just narratives tacked onto regularities in data, and as such exhibit all the usual human cognitive biases.

    “The theory of gravity, is also just a theory, lol.”

    Lol indeed. It isn’t even a theory. It’s a metaphor. There is no such “thing” as gravity – it is merely a metaphor for observed regularities of behavior among physical objects. No scientist sees gravity as a “real thing” rather than as just a way of talking about the fact that physical objects tend to act a certain way.

    “The theory of Evolution meets the standards of any other scientific field of knowledge – namely it is falsifiable, and verifiable.

    That it’s broad synthesis is not subject to a singular feat of deductive reasoning is irrelevant to the accepted value of scientific inquiry, and investigation.”

    Where on earth did I say I was contesting the theory of Evolution for God’s sake????

    Within the framework of evolution, I am contesting your “theory” that female choice was the main selection pressure for male traits.

    That being said, evolution fits the definition of a theory.

    “Because this all FOLLOWS from a collectively narrow monolith in shared female mate preference.

    Again, even if true (which is debatable, following social cues does is not necessarily “narrow”) this does not mean the main selection pressure was female choice.

    “If the determinant selection pressure was Parental choice(if I am understanding your ridiculous term correctly), then women would be getting their gina tingles from parental approval.”

    No! Why on earth would that follow? Don’t you get it, man? It means female gina tingles would be irrelevant!

    What odd logic you just displayed there! You really have blinders on.

    “Also, you are greatly underestimating the influence that prospective brides were able to exert over these outcomes.”

    How do you know? How could you prove such a thing?

    “And, in order for sexual captivity to occur(and pose fitness trials), it must imply(and maintain) some measure of sexual conflict between female preference and undesirable mates(ergo, it CANNOT be used as an explanation for
    tendencies in female mate preference when it is implicitly CONFLICTED with those preferences).”

    Duuuude, blinders again.

    I am NOT using the fact that strong men took who they wanted to explain evolved female sexual preference. Where would you get that idea? I am saying this means female sexual choice PLAYED MINIMAL ROLE in selection of male traits.

    And logically, strong men choosing women DOES NOT imply that there was conflict between male and female sexual preferences. That does NOT logically follow. The women might simply have had weak internal signals – as I’ve been arguing – and thus simply didn’t care much one way or the other. Or since this was the society’s accepted method of mate choice, she fell in line with it.

    Either way, male strength might then get passed on WITHOUT female sexual preference being the primary selective pressure!

    How can this be so hard to understand?

    “We don’t need studies to show that – we can rely upon logical inference from what we understand of evolutionary systems, in rendering the closest agreement to our testable observations.”

    But, we’re talking about the nexus of female mate preference(remember?), which CANNOT be the consequence of ‘parental choice’ or sexual captivity(as I have already explained).”

    I don’t know what you mean by the “nexus of female mate preference”. Presumably you mean that percentage of the selection pressure represented by female choice in the passing on of mail traits. OBVIOUSLY, by definition, that part of the selection pressure represented by female choice has nothing to do with parental choice.

    The whole point, though, is to determine exactly how much role female choice did in fact play in the passing on of male traits. Obviously, to the extent that it played a role, parental choice had nothing to do with it.

    But the point is, did it play a role? And if so, was it perhaps minor?

    That’s the point, not the “nexus”.

    “Evolution is not a social science.”

    No, but devising theories for why humans behave the way they do is a social science, by definition. Look up the word social.

    • Paragon, I am not sure if you are anti-game or not. Alek Novy claims that you are. My problem is, whether or not you are anti-game, you are implicitly buying into so many of the faulty premises, sloppy thinking patterns, pretentious prose stylings, and fallacious debate tactics of pro-game manospherians.

      Everything you and Tyrion Lannister have written in this thread I totally understand. Some of it I even agree with. My issues though include how even the most simple evolutionary biology observation you have to render in the most prolix and intellectually pretentious, jargon-filled language possible. As another commenter mentioned, even though I can understand your points it takes more effort to unravel your meaning than I find worthwhile considering how basic your observations end up being once I make sense out of them. So I commend George for his patience in making the points I didn’t have the patience to, as well as many points I didn’t even consider.

      The difference in clarity of language and quality of thought process between you and Tyrion on one side and George on the other is staggering. The simplicity and clarity of language not only makes the ideas communicate more powerfully for the listener, but I think they probably help the speaker’s thought process improve as well. I imagine you have a lot of trouble spotting the fallacies of thinking that George is pointing out in your arguments because you are wasting far too much mental energy toward constructing tortuously convoluted prose to make your points.

      • Ok, I have to chime in again. Whereas last time I was defending paragon, this time I have to defend grizzly.

        But first, to settle this bullshit:

        For instance it is a fact that women got the vote in democratic countries much later the men did.

        That’s total bullshit.

        1) In most countries women and men got the vote on the exact same day.

        2) in the few countries that they got vote later it was due to democracy being a “rolled out” feature with it being rolled out group by group… where for example rich women got the vote BEFORE poor men or other types of low status men.

        ITS CRUCIAL to always note that the voting right was FIRST invented as a barter. The voter vowed his LIFE in exchange for a voting right. I.e a man had to accept always being on the roster and fight for his country in a war. Women essentially got the vote for free. Men had to sign they trade their life in exchange.

        It is only later that mandatory army service started being removed in matured democracies. Originally voting was tied to military service.

        3) even in countries where voting was a gradual rollout process, the difference between when one group got the vote and the other was at most 0.01% later [in terms of total history]

        P.s George is full of shit on a lot of things he writes, and don’t confuse great writing ability with knowing what one is talking about. I assure you paragon actually knows his shit much better.

        Defending Grizzly’s point

        While in the last comment I was defending paragon I have to agree where his critics have a valid point.

        I happen to be a sociologist by formal training, this is my formal title and my specialty was the scientific method and how it applies to social sciences research. I come from a family line of scientists, both hard science and social science.

        With all of this said, I understand why most of the time Paragon has to use technical terms to make a point. In a lot of cases it’s impossible to accurately make the same point in plain English…

        However, it’s also clear Paragon prefers to always use this language even when it’s not needed. Even when plain English will suffice, he tries to use the most inaccessible academic phrasing instead…

        I suspect this is a “con-trick” to gain upper hand in debates as looking the more sciencey, therefore being afforded higher authority.

        With that said, this is where his similarities to a manospherian end… Yes.

        – It is true that Roissy and other pseudo-scientist bullshitters love to throw about these terms to appear more authorative to the reader

        – It is true Paragon ALSO tries to use as much sciencey languaging to appear authorative

        This is where the similarity ENDS however.

        As someone who’s trained in this field, when I read a bullshitter like Roissy I know that he doesn’t even know what the terms mean (he just stacks them randomly).

        When I read Paragon it’s clear he actually knows what he’s talking about. But yes, he prefers the less accessible language even when it’s a hindrance. Most scientists (unless a pompous asshole) will also prefer plain English when it suffices. Paragon seems to thrive on not having a single sentence in plain English.

  24. “I assure you paragon actually knows his shit much better.”

    Oh, I’d agree that Paragon has an excellent grasp of the “standard” model. He almost certainly knows it better than I do.

    Whether that knowledge is worth having, or has any kind of authority, is another question.

    That being said, if Paragon simplified his language he’d be a fantastic exponent of the standard view, worth having around for that reason alone if no other.

    It’s been said by many (Nietzsche, Orwell, AlekNovy – but that last is apocryphal) that people use overly complex and technical language to disguise some inadequacy or lack. Surely if the standard view is so compelling it hardly needs to hide behind complex language. Perhaps Paragon, in his heart of hearts, has misgivings. We are all asking Paragon to simplify his language – but perhaps Paragon knows that would be unwise.

    • “It’s been said by many (Nietzsche, Orwell, AlekNovy – but that last is apocryphal) that people use overly complex and technical language to disguise some inadequacy or lack.”

      Ok, was going to let this go, but this is typical of those I’ve seen who sit around dropping snarky Nietzsche quotes(or paraphrases) like it actually puts authority behind what they say, while complaining about some other poster using “over complicated” language to “appeal to authority”. Like that “Ubermenche” jackass(Nietzsche) himself wasn’t projecting some serious lacks of his own with his “might makes right” bovine excrement “morality” of mass-murdering dictators/thugs throughout time which is neither new, nor moral, nor “enlightened”, as much as self-important neo-’60s navel gazers insist otherwise.

      Anyway, I’ve got a simple idea for Paragon: don’t read his posts(I didn’t). Other than that, he has the right to post here & discuss whatever the hell he wants, however the hell he wants, even if the language & length of his points hurt your poor little sensitive crybaby behinds & bother you so much, or remind you of some other unimportant blogger somewhere(what a stupid, petulant excuse).

      Until BP bans Paragon from this blog, he’s free to say as he pleases. I know Nietzsche cultists struggle with concepts like personal freedom & autonomy(the very tenets of civilization). Typical though of someone that brings up patriarchy(“ohhhhhh those poor Wymyn couldn’t vote, OMG!”) in an argument while pretending to be all about mens rights & defending a blog that’s supposed to be all for mens rights(not some 180-year old rich white dead CUNT’s voting “rights”).

      I’ve said it before; I’ve seen at least as many feminists here than I would probably see at any other white-knighting, lamestream-media-misandry brainwash/regurgitation blog or lesbian femynyst site/blog.

      • Anyway, I’ve got a simple idea for Paragon: don’t read his posts(I didn’t). Other than that, he has the right to post here & discuss whatever the hell he wants, however the hell he wants, even if the language & length of his points hurt your poor little sensitive crybaby behinds & bother you so much, or remind you of some other unimportant blogger somewhere(what a stupid, petulant excuse).

        Yes, he can post whatever he likes in response to what BP writes, and we also have a right to critique what he writes. It’s called discussion, dumbass. It’s what a comment section is for.

        You know, kind of like how you didn’t like what we wrote about Paragon and responded to US. You too had the choice to just ignore what we read, but you didn’t did you? That makes you a hypocrite.

        Also, are you a manospherian, WN, or alt-right reader? Because you sure debate like one. They love to characterize any disagreement as someone having “hurt feelings” or being “sensitive.” It’s so fucking childish and idiotic.

        • “Yes, he can post whatever he likes in response to what BP writes, and we also have a right to critique what he writes. It’s called discussion, dumbass”

          & I also have the right to critique what I think is overly-obsessive, paranoid(as well as pretentious) 2-on-1 hand-wringing/bellyaching over someone’s style/vocabulary. It’s called discussion, dumbass. 😛

          “You too had the choice to just ignore what we read, but you didn’t did you? That makes you a hypocrite.”

          At least I didn’t go on a 20-post, week & a half-long, equally-lenthy(compared to Paragon’s earlier posts) pretentious tirade about it, trying to sound Uber-authoritative myself by name dropping George Orwell & some dead Kraut faux philosopher that a bunch a worthless pot-smoking pretentious asshole hippies thought was “deep”, even though he was an intellectual infant that contributed absolutely nothing useful or positive.

          “Also, are you a manospherian, WN, or alt-right reader? Because you sure debate like one. They love to characterize any disagreement as someone having “hurt feelings” or being “sensitive.””

          See, this is exactly what the fuck I’m speaking of. Stereotyping & demonizing someone by the words they use. Or lumping people(anyone) who you don’t even know the opinions of into “manospherian, WN, or alt-right reader” because the say something that reminds you of them. That’s the kind of closed-minded, paranoid fucking herd mentality I see here often, and it’s fucking illogical, childish & pathetic.

          Why not just assume Paragon’s “overly” intellectual style of writing is just the way he chooses to write for his own personal reasons as a grown, intelligent adult instead of this overly-obsessive bleating over symantics that rightly make me & probably most people out there reading it think you 2 are utterly, irrationally paranoid, just like with what you are now by accusing me of being “manospherian, WN, or alt-right reader” when you don’t know shit.

          You know there ARE more types of people out there beside “manospherian, WN, or alt-right reader” and you guys……you KNOW that, RIGHT? How about……I think you & George are just pompous, obsessive, paranoid assholes and that has NOTHING to do with “MRA” or “Roosh” or whatever………maybe people just DON’T LIKE SOME OTHER PEOPLE and THAT’S THAT……………dumbass. 😛

          Like I said, I wasn’t going to chime in, but name dropping that Nazi “philosopher” was the shit cherry on the puke pie that set me off. LIKE I SAID, that has NOTHING to do with “manospherian, WN, or alt-right reader” or whatever you’re accusing me of………dumbass. 😛 😛 😛

          “It’s so fucking childish and idiotic.”

          More projecting. 😛

        • TL; DR, you stupid manospherian troll. For someone who complains about ppl responding to someone, you sure wrote a huge wall of text in respond to me, stupid. Like all manospherians you’re stupid and a hypocrite.

        • “TL; DR”

          Typical troll tactic(YBM used that on me as well). When you can’t refute a response/defense with a reasonable rebuttal, claim illiteracy. I fail to see how that makes one seem intelligent or helps one “win” a argument, but I guess I don’t live in your la-la crazy world.

          “you stupid manospherian troll”

          Because I called you 2 crybabies? I don’t know what “the manosphere” is, never been there, am not a part of it & don’t care to be. How many more hundreds of times should I say that? Do you have any type of comprehension ability at all? Ever hear of “correlation is not causation” or the more basic “you’re comparing apples with oranges”? Did you ever go to school? Just what makes you intelligent? I just don’t see it.

          I found Blackpill 2 years ago on a Google search, looking for places where I could find blogs sympathetic to adult male virginity, since I’m an adult male virgin due to autism spectrum disorder. Instead I get trolled by sociopaths like you & YBM.

          “you sure wrote a huge wall of text in respond to me”

          “YBM” also exhibited a very similar lack of command of the English language. If you’re going to troll by calling others “dumbass”, it might help you to at least appear somewhat educated yourself. English is global(has been forever); being “foreign” is no excuse. You just look like a typical 3rd-world squatter when you do things like mis-type “response”. I just can’t take you seriously. Like I said, what makes you intelligent? I suppose this is where you blatantly lie about your “credentials”, just like all trolls do. Trolls are as predictable as a clock.

          “Like all manospherians”

          The whole outside world of 7 billion+ people isn’t a “manosphere”. Neither am I. Projecting your individual personal problems with “manosphereians” onto the entire general population out there is insanity & stupidity. You really need to get out more(or go to other places on the web besides MRA/manosphere blogs at least).

        • STILL here? I’m already done with you, stupid manospherian troll. But if it makes you feel better, feel free to write another histrionic wall of text that I won’t bother reading.

        • “STILL here? I’m already done with you”

          Well I obviously don’t need your permission to post. That’s cool you’re done, though. Thanks for that heads up.

          “stupid manospherian troll”

          Paragon(who I defended before) is not even a manospherian; AlekNovy said as much himself, here as well as elsewhere. You should listen to Alek; he’s another Blackpill comments veteran, just like you(& a smart one).

          “feel free to write another histrionic wall of text that I won’t bother reading”

          No need to further explain myself since others reading my prior 2 responses to you already know what I say is truth(that I’m not a manospherian or a troll….troll).

          Calling my responses a wall of text is grossly exaggerating, btw. You seem to fear written communication. You should just leave the internet(if not the planet) altogether if that’s the case.

  25. @ Tyrion Lannister

    “Anyway if the real huge inequality in male mating success was a reliable correlate of offspring in the modern frame, (that is not)”

    I don’t know what u mean by ‘reliable’.

    There may be no ‘reliable’ data on any correlation, but I think it is safe to assume there is a correlation(females may be more focused on physical attraction for casual sex, but I would still say that physical attraction is at least as important a
    determinant as any other factor when it comes to long-term mating – as far as developed world populations are concerned).

    “tending to a small breeding male population, recessive deleterious mutations are typically rare. The potential adverse health consequences of notably altering group-specific genetic correlation structures outweigh the possible phenotypes mixing benefits related to decreasing the likelihood of obtaining identical copies of recessive deleterious mutations from parents belonging to different phenotypes.”

    You are referring to epistasis.

    The human fitness landscape is rugged, so any dynamic that has a strong likelihood to preturb the stability of epistatic ‘neighbourhoods'(‘notably altering group-specific genetic correlation structures’, as you put it) can likewise be seen as dysgenic.

    Inbreeding depression, however, is something that even the layman can grasp.

    But, the point is, that any rapid trend to smaller male breeding populations is likely to be a dysgenic trend.

    • @ Paragon,

      “I now regard the study I cited as an anomaly.

      If I were to venture an explanation for any non- random effects in this study, it would be to propose some subset of males where Self-seeking strategies are learned behaviors following from spurious notions in conflating symmetry between sexes.

      But, better to discount it, without a compelling body of corroborating evidence.”

      I am delighted that we have been able to reach a common thinking on this issue. I am a man of open mind, and I’m willing to accept all kinds of hypotheses when we have more and better studies about facial perceptual process and information-processing mechanisms operating within mate choice complex.

      But if methodological details are not appropriate, studies conducted are too scarce, with a small size sample and failed in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes, I would say that this potentially false research should not be considered as acceptable. See for example:

      http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

      “To be clear, I am not suggesting such a link exists in lieu of evidence.

      I am merely supposing the study I cited may be evidence of some trend towards these linkages, and expositing on an evolutionary justification.

      If sexual coercion is an advantageous strategy for some subset of genetically attractive males to pursue, then frequencies should follow from that success.”

      At this point it is difficult to reach agreement. According to distribution on mate choice decisions observed, female mating preferences tend to a narrow subset of highly attractive males, skewing the distribution on mate choice decisions.

      Once females prefer particular male qualities, the preferences exert selection pressures on the preferred traits. Men who possessed preferred traits, by virtue of their enhanced ability to exercise choice in a mating system, had greater reproductive success.

      Maybe you’re trying to say that, as long as they are within a highly monogamous system, the most attractive males would be paired up with only one female (as the rest of males), and therefore they would be below their optimum potential fitness.

      So that adopting coercive tactics they could increase reproductive fitness and reducing their levels of male parental investment. But that deductive reasoning does not hold, since the remaining males could adopt the same strategy for increasing their mating rate. Since no mate acceptance (meet a certain attractiveness threshold) is required prior to an forced intercourse.

      I find more plausibles other tactics (as cuckoldry allowed for some females) when high quality males were willing to increase their fitness optima in a closed pair-bonded system. I don’t think that coercitive involuntary copulation can be a required alternative reproductive strategy for those most sexually-appealing males.

      It seems to me more feasible some type of frequency-dependent selection mechanism for coercitive behavioral for less quality males (especially in polygynous settings or with male-biased sex ratios).

      But forced copulation performed by less quality males lead to an antagonistic co-evolution, and it would be offset by a countering trait in females.(while his hypothesis would have to explain that female offspring would be more likely to possess the preference for these coercitive males)

      “You are referring to epistasis.

      The human fitness landscape is rugged, so any dynamic that has a strong likelihood to preturb the stability of epistatic ‘neighbourhoods'(‘notably altering group-specific genetic correlation structures’, as you put it) can likewise be seen as dysgenic.

      Inbreeding depression, however, is something that even the layman can grasp.

      But, the point is, that any rapid trend to smaller male breeding populations is likely to be a dysgenic trend.”

      I mostly agree. Anyway whether sexual selection increases or decreases extinction risks when populations face variable or unforeseen conditions is likewise unknown.

      Inbreeding may be caused by a high mating skew, but it could also be reduced if females adaptively choose mates to avoid inbred offspring. Mate choice may evolve by indirect selection when attractive males bestow genes for increased fitness on offspring.

      These fitness benefits may be in increased survival or fecundity, but they may equally be for increased male attractiveness at the expense of survival and fecundity.

      “How about a relationship between testosterone, body-composition, bone structure, and sexual aggression?”

      True, on some body parameters. For now there is no proven relationship to facial attractiveness.

      “I am not speaking to mating effort, per se.

      I would argue that sexual aggression is a male secondary sexual characteristic(phenotypes operate on the behavioral axis as well).

      The costs of display are too high to be borne in success by all but males of sufficient genetic quality.

      I will concede to you – at this point, anti-social tendencies cannot be taken as speaking to genetic quality, in the general case.

      But, there is clearly some subset of genetically attractive males from whom sexually coercive behavior is advantageous, in terms of netting higher mating success(and thus, in evidence of their high genetic quality).

      I have only delineated how strategic tendencies in sexual coercion can gain traction in the fitness landscape, given favorable conditions where females enable such behaviors in genetically favored males(passively selecting for them) – a notion which is, increasingly, non controversial, especially in the manosphere.

      If frequencies follow from evolutionary success, and tendencies in sexual coercion correlate strongly with other anti-social behaviors which predispose criminality, I think the implications are clear.

      Admittedly, a highly speculative tangent.”

      But I said above, I would rather avoid purposely misrepresent or misunderstand the process of science, taking isolated studies and stitching them together to support novel and counter-intuitive theses. So an interpretation of this hypothesis remains controversial for me, and a lack of empirical evidence prevents a consensus.

      I might be more lenient with the assertion that women could be passively more permissive toward sexual coercion coming from men displaying best quality genetically traits. But is still a fairly speculative theoretical model, far from being corroborated by any empirical evidence across studies.

      “I don’t know what you mean by ‘reliable’.

      There may be no ‘reliable’ data on any correlation, but I think it is safe to assume there is a correlation(females may be more focused on physical attraction for casual sex, but I would still venture to say that mutual physical attraction is as strong a determinant as other factors for reproductive success – at least as far as developed world populations are concerned). “

      You’re right since sexual selection is associated with higher mating opportunities and subsequent reproductive success across our evolutionary history. I meant simply that the prevalence of modern birth control methods likely to disconnect mating opportunities from reproductive success. Neglect of the topic in mate choice literature limits the ability to formulate empirically grounded models of sexual selection.

  26. @ Tyrion

    “Anyway if the real huge inequality in male mating success was a reliable correlate of offspring in the modern frame, (that is not)”

    Unintended pregnancies are common(http://www.livescience.com/19880-unplanned-pregnancy-young-women.html), so it remains an open question as to what exactly is a reliable correlate of offspring(unless you have some data you would care to share).

    I am merely assuming some rate of reproductive success that follows/results from these behaviors, and the increased latitude we should expect females to concede attractive males for the prospect of securing fit genes for their potential offspring.

    “What you have hypothesized would need to find a linkage between alleles for “criminal behaviour” and variation in facial morphology.”

    To elaborate, that is not my argument.

    There is a clear indication of sex hormone mediated effects(increased testosterone or increased androgen receptor activity, etc), in predisposing aggressive, competitive, and risk taking male behaviors in response to environmental
    challenges/stresses(sexual success, in particular):

    Neural sensitivity to sex steroids predicts individual differences in aggression: implications for behavioural evolution –

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3396890/

    Androgen Receptors, Sex Behaviour, and Aggression – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474193/

    The influence of testosterone on human aggression – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2029601/

    Testosterone and human aggression: an evaluation of the challenge hypothesis – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16483890/

    http://sitemaker.umich.edu/eugene.burnstein/files/36._mazur_booth_98_dominancetestostbbs.pdf

    Low- and High-Testosterone Individuals Exhibit Decreased Aversion to Economic Risk – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653580/

    There are also strong indications that these same sex-hormone mediated factors correlate inversely with either short-term or long term reproductive strategies(with increased androgen factors corresponding strongly with short term mating behaviors, such as increased mate seeking at the expense of paternal investments).

    If these same related androgen factors are likewise correlated with signals of genetic quality(which they are – via their masculinizing effects on male development), then it can be shown that males benefiting from high androgenicity should find an advantage in pursuing a short term mating strategy which expedites high mating traffic.

    As females become more financially independent, less subject to mate guarding, and less inhibited with regards to casual sex, opportunities for attractive males to increase mating success through sexually aggressive(even coercive) behaviors, should likewise increase(again, through the increased latitude we should expect females to grant attractive males, for the prospect of securing fit genes for their potential offspring).

    This explains an apparent correlation between male attractiveness(via the dimension strongly mediated by androgenic factors), and sexually coercive behaviors(at least in some study samples), which we should expect would grow stronger the more successful these strategies become.

    There is evidence that such an evolutionary niche exists in the literature, but the dynamic nature of the apparent niche is, thus far, speculative.

    I would also like to point out that fixating on facial morphology fails to account for much of the androgen mediated effects on male body size/composition(as attractiveness related indicators of inmmunocompetence, health, and genetic quality) – something which may be confounded by measures of male facial attractiveness alone.

    • Paragon, sirtyrionlannister….in light of your recent discussion, do you think it’s entirely possible that (A) political correctness(integration, race mixing) was advanced/encouraged by elites in western societies out of perhaps a concern for possible widespread dysgenic effects of inbreeding based on prior, perhaps subconscious, sexual selections based perhaps on male attractiveness perhaps aided by variable external factors of the time(say, pre 1965) such as segregation & restrictive immigration of racial minorities into western(white) societies and (B) given the recent tremendous successes of progressive-driven mass-minority immigration infusions into western societies since, again, the mid 1960s, plus the advent, from that period on, of “white guilt” political correctness and encouragement of, perhaps, genetically beneficial(to some degrees) race mixing as encouraged by the media & entertainment outlets of western societies(Hollywood, MTV, etc, in America, for example), would you say overall, that the effect is genetically beneficial, even in a utilitarian sense, for all of humanity(including, say, western white males), or is today’s sexual landscape overall dysgenic, whether to humanity as a whole, or to just, perhaps a particular segment of the population(say, introverted, intelligent, beta/omega white males with perhaps lower testosterone(genetic “fitness”)?).

      • *bump*[my post from June 19th, for either(or both) Paragon or(&) Sirtyrionlannister(if this isn’t buried by tomorrow morning)]

      • Firstly, I believe that US immigration policy has economic roots that go back farther than any common understanding of concepts in population genetics, which would have been required to form a basis in policy.

        As for dysgenic trends in contemporary developed world populations – it depends on how broadly you would define a deleterious mutation.

        I guess, in the broadest sense, a population trend continuing towards sub-replacement fertility, in any environment that is ostensibly below carrying capacity, could be termed as ‘dysgenic’.

        Is a more genetically variable population ideal in terms of evolutionary fitness?

        Assuming the closest to Hardy-Weinburg proportions – yes(as this would imply minimal rate at which deleterious recessives combine).

        But, in practice, and despite added gene-flow, the populations you are concerned with resemble tossed-salads of fragmented clinal variance, where we might expect additional barriers/resistance to random mating – in terms of Hamiltonian spite, and parochial altruism.

        So, it really is difficult to assess how far from ideal these tossed-salad populations are, and what the real potential costs in Hamiltonian spite/parochial altruism are.

        As long as interactions between sub groups remain largely cooperative, greater variance denotes a more ideal population.

        However, a more ideal population does not necessarily have any correspondence to individual quality of life outcomes.

        • Hey Paragon, great posts,

          I’ve been trying to find something more of yourself all over the blogosphere,.. on Dalrock, evan marc, etc, thanks to the clues offered by sir Tyrion. But I could not find nothing posted after the year 2012. ..You have completely disappeared from that time? or have you been posting on other websites? Where could I find more comments of yourself? whether former or current ones. Thank you, friend.

    • @ Paragon,

      Well testosterone is an immunosuppressant, so such “masculine” traits may represent an honest signal of quality, as the individual with high testosterone has successfully coped with its somewhat debilitating effects.

      This has led evolutionary theorists to speculate that masculine structure in humans is a Zahavi handicap trait: an honest signal of genetic quality, as males with masculine traits are displaying survival ability despite maintaining high testosterone levels.

      But the relationship of testosterone level with genetic quality is more complex:

      http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138%2804%2900027-3/abstract

      http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1751/20122495.short

      Moreover, if this theory was correct, females should show preference for masculine facial architecture too, not only for masculine body morphology. And although some studies support the hypothesis that women prefer masculinized male faces, other studies indicate that women do not have clear preferences for such traits in males:

      http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/269/1507/2285.short

      http://faceresearch.org/students/masculinity

      http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/273/1598/2169.short

      http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138%2804%2900027-3/abstract

      Even more keeping in mind that face attractiveness predicts overall attractiveness more strongly than body attractiveness, and this difference is significant in males:

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513809000580

      http://www.mta.ca/~raiken/Courses/3401/Labs/Lab%20Papers/sym6.pdf

      So maybe it would be appropriate to wait a while until we have more clarifiers new research.

      • “But the relationship of testosterone level with genetic quality is more complex:

        http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138%2804%2900027-3/abstract

        http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1751/20122495.short

        Moreover, if this theory was correct, females should show preference for masculine facial architecture too, not only for

        masculine body morphology. And although some studies support the hypothesis that women prefer masculinized male faces, other

        studies indicate that women do not have clear preferences for such traits in males:

        http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/269/1507/2285.short

        http://faceresearch.org/students/masculinity

        http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/273/1598/2169.short

        http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138%2804%2900027-3/abstract

        Thanks for the studies.

        To be fair, there is no consensus, and many possible confounders.

        The composite study is difficult to relate to what one would expect to observe with natural populations.

        One of the studies omitted hair in the facial portraits, but added it later in the composite, and noted an unaccountable variance between body, head, and composite ratings.

        Some of the studies noted a dependency with menstrual cycles, while others did not.

        One of the studies did not conflate masculinity with inverse measures of adiposity(via their joint mediation by male sex steroids), and instead seemed to rely on subjective estimations of ‘masculinity’, which, without a specified standard, could imply different things between cultures of studied populations.

        “Even more keeping in mind that face attractiveness predicts overall attractiveness more strongly than body attractiveness, and this difference is significant in males:

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513809000580

        Even more keeping in mind that face attractiveness predicts overall attractiveness more strongly than body attractiveness,

        and this difference is significant in males:

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513809000580

        http://www.mta.ca/~raiken/Courses/3401/Labs/Lab%20Papers/sym6.pdf

        My argument has never been that facial symmetry is not a determinant of attractiveness.

        Only that there are other components of attractiveness which are likewise contributing to these/any evaluations.

        My position is that any relationship between Testosterone-mediated indications of genetic quality(which have an observable and related effect on both facial/body dimorphism – an acknowledged component of attractiveness, at least in some of the studies you cited) and costly honest signals(including, but not limited to, delinquent and anti-social tendencies with a low threshold of risk, thus limiting falsification by poorly adapted males) should be considered in an evolutionary context where economic freedoms have lifted many of the traditional barriers to success, over time.

        Again, this is not to imply that male physical attractiveness is more closely related with antisocial traits, than prosocial traits(in lieu of actual evidence to suggest that).

        It is simply an acknowledgement that we should expect an evolutionary niche to exist, which finds some synergy between objective indications of male attractiveness, and some population of males adapted to delinquent and/or antisocial behaviors.

        And I think it is entirely reasonable to speculate on what this may mean to some future hypothetical population, over evolutionary time.

        • @ Paragon,

          I’m sorry for my delayed response, but I’ve been offline for a while.

          “To be fair, there is no consensus, and many possible confounders.
          The composite study is difficult to relate to what one would expect to observe with natural populations.

          One of the studies omitted hair in the facial portraits, but added it later in the composite, and noted an unaccountable variance between body, head, and composite ratings.

          Some of the studies noted a dependency with menstrual cycles, while others did not”

          I agree. The drawback is mainly methodology, since most studies measuring mate preferences are using composites (face morphs/ body dummies) instead of real faces/bodies. Therefore the use of artificial stimuli can produce misleading results. Moreover, these researchs are prone to forced-choice tests, where female must choose between two or several morphs, and usually is shown an array with a few imagenes of the varying degrees of a certain parameter.

          These lab studies are suffering from lack of ecological validity. I advocate, as you rightly point out, for examining female mate preferences within natural populations, in a context of ecological validity (online dating/speed dating or field research).

          Moreover in these forced-choice test it is not possible to withhold a response. In other words, the probability of responding to a stimulus in a forced-choice test depends only on the difference in preference strength between these artificial stimuli and not on the absolute preference for either stimulus.

          “One of the studies did not conflate masculinity with inverse measures of adiposity(via their joint mediation by male sex steroids), and instead seemed to rely on subjective estimations of ‘masculinity’, which, without a specified standard, could imply different things between cultures of studied populations.”

          Regarding to masculinity, I’d say that physiological role of androgens should be based on non-morphometric measurements (i.e. primarily in serum or in saliva).

          Furthermore some zoological study suggests that moderate testosterone levels helps provide mating success:

          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100504102126.htm

          I’d add that selection for higher levels of testosterone in males is probably constrained by a correlated response to selection causing negative effects on female attractiveness.

          “My position is that any relationship between Testosterone-mediated indications of genetic quality(which have an observable and related effect on both facial/body dimorphism – an acknowledged component of attractiveness, at least in some of the studies you cited) and costly honest signals(including, but not limited to, delinquent and anti-social tendencies with a low threshold of risk, thus limiting falsification by poorly adapted males) should be considered in an evolutionary context where economic freedoms have lifted many of the traditional barriers to success, over time.

          Again, this is not to imply that male physical attractiveness is more closely related with antisocial traits, than prosocial traits(in lieu of actual evidence to suggest that).

          It is simply an acknowledgement that we should expect an evolutionary niche to exist, which finds some synergy between objective indications of male attractiveness, and some population of males adapted to delinquent and/or antisocial behaviors.

          And I think it is entirely reasonable to speculate on what this may mean to some future hypothetical population, over evolutionary time.”

          It is not feasible that an evolutionary niche like that could arise (considering the coercive behavior as the only operational characteristic to enhance sexual access within the range of antisocial traits).

          If there is selection for female mate choice, then effects of traits expressed in most attractive males lead to favorable directional mating with females. Honest quality signals works as a sensory exploitation per se, and selection for coercive behaviour develops only for overcoming female reluctance. Unless, we would suppose that genetic quality has no relation to physical attractiveness, and women are rebuffing the fittest man.

          Maybe in some taxa, females can use the sexual coercion process to assess male quality (e.g. some non-human primates, where mating system is based on intrasexual competition; alpha males can surmount other males and overcome a female resistance, due to they possess good genes). But the reverse case is usually the most frequent. By example, studies of the rose bitterling have shown that offspring of females with mate choice had higher survival rates than offspring of females that did not. From which it can be deduced that males engaging in such coercive behaviors (deprived males) are not the fittest ones.

          Happy holidays to you and all readers!

        • Hey, Tyrion – it has been a couple of years, and I have many new insights I would like to share and discuss.

          But, as a gesture of courtesy I would ask that you kindly remove any private information from your sister blog: https://guillermosaenz.wordpress.com/

          I trust that you can make compelling arguments without invading my privacy.

        • Don’t worry, Paragon. I will try to persuade Macgyver to hiding your personal info.

  27. “My argument has never been that facial symmetry is not a determinant of attractiveness.

    Only that there are other components of attractiveness which are likewise contributing to these/any evaluations.”

    I’d claim that changes in attractiveness produced by experimentally manipulating the averageness/prototypicality (i.e. Koinophilia) of faces remain when the images are made perfectly symmetric.

    • “It is not feasible that an evolutionary niche like that could arise (considering the coercive behavior as the only operational characteristic to enhance sexual access within the range of antisocial traits).

      If there is selection for female mate choice, then effects of traits expressed in most attractive males lead to favorable directional mating with females. Honest quality signals works as a sensory exploitation per se, and selection for coercive behaviour develops only for overcoming female reluctance. Unless, we would suppose that genetic quality has no relation to physical attractiveness, and women are rebuffing the fittest man.”

      This ignores the implications of strategic pluralism – since females seek both long term and short term mating benefits we should expect that coercive mating behaviors arise through sexual conflict, especially during times of intense competition for scarce resources.

      • @ Paragon,

        “This ignores the implications of strategic pluralism – since females seek both long term and short term mating benefits we should expect that coercive mating behaviors arise through sexual conflict, especially during times of intense competition for scarce resources.”

        Females show stronger acceptance responses to ornamented/attractive males than to less conspicouos males, indicating a pre-existing female bias pattern for courting male stimuli.

        I’d suggest to read about the evolutionary relationship between male coercion and female choice. So you could assess the potential for sexual coercion and subsequent response to female exclusion based on male display/morphology.

        During times of intense competition for scarce resources – i.e. high mating skew -, the most gorgeous males are typically able to find quality females willing to mate with them. The less attractive morphs are typically unable to find females willing to mate with them. These less prefered morphs are more likely to chase down and rape females.

        This represents a conditional strategy. When males are unable to gain sexual access to females through intrasexual competition and by being attractive to females, they may use the conditional strategy of chasing down and raping a female.

      • Paragon,

        A major intuitive observational finding is that the most attractive males, those most preferred by females, are not the highly competitive (male-male intraselection) males with higher physical power, strength and fighting ability.

        This is despite the fact these fighter males enjoy significant mating advantages when in direct competition against other males to seize females (when female mate choice is limited)

        Instead, females prefer to mate with physically attractive/showy males, but as Tyrion noted, in competitive mating situations (sexual coercion), females mate involuntarily with the more competitive phenotypes.

        So it seems that male–male competition constrains female choice in humans, and similar findings have been reported in other taxa. So where the most competitive male phenotypes are not preferred by females, and similarly, male attractiveness and competitiveness are not phenotypically or genetically correlated in humans, suggesting these are independent routes to male fitness.

  28. Pingback: Chicks Dig Jerks? | The Human Mating

  29. Paragon was a obstinate apologist for international marriage agencies..“go to Asia/Eastern Europe”…

    So I bet that he left these incel forums because he finally purchased a mail order bride in 2012 (Russia, Philippines?).

    He was quite smart and I’m going to guess with financial means, and those women are desperate to start a new life for themselves in Europe and the US.

    And as on this same blog post in 2015 he said he lived in Asia, sure I bet he found a Filipino wife and raise a bunch of kids on a farm with chickens and coconut palms and shit.

  30. Reply to sirtyrionlannister’s sister blog: https://guillermosaenz.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/identity-and-self-presentation-online-self-embellishmentdeception/comment-page-1/#comment-5

    “Although we do not have any images/photograhs from that lifetime, we can infer their real mating success from their
    current photographs, online experimentation/trials and his subsequent path towards the acquisition of his mail order
    bride (I will address this issue later).”

    Inferences from bad assumptions(or cherry picked test data) will render bad conclusions.
    Like the conclusion that anyone shares the axe you are obviously grinding.
    You are alone in your folly.

    “False. Mailing the most attractive women his actual response rate was/is/will be 0%.”
    Argument from assertion – I am in the position to know.

    Your obvious axe to grind to does not make your assertions any more credible.
    Incredulity makes a poor argument.

    “The results obtained by my own mating tests (see) refute this statement.”
    Non sequitur.

    My real life experiences does not follow from your (cherry picked?)test results.

    “Theory provides opposite predictions: older women, who are less attractive to men than young females, tend to be less choosy, and older males, face fewer expected future mating opportunities.”

    Assuming online dating populations are normal populations – which is not an assumption that I(or any other reasonable person) hold.

    “I doubt he had any sexual propositions.”

    Incredulity makes for poor argument.

    “I, on the other hand had received around 30, after a substantially longer tenure.
    Hard to believe.”

    Incredulity makes for poor argument.

    “Hunk men who get selected by women (based on their phenotype), wouldn’t not be wasting their time on incels forums?”

    How much time was I wasting on incel forums at this time?

    “Or moving to the other side of the planet to dating a plain female?”
    Who was dating?

    As people age, their attractiveness diminishes.

    Long term mating/pair bonding is a viable investment strategy, selected by evolutionary success.

    Ad-hominem diatribes on wordpress are not.

    No one honestly cares what you think is beautiful.

    Projecting sour grapes onto your status betters does not credit your arguments.

    “Adapted to what? to find a asian woman overseas because of the reluctance of most of Western women towards mating you (since relatively few attractive males monopolize most of the female preferences).”

    Your alleged testing methods do not support such a sweeping generalization.

    “They are not of a more agreeable quality (except if we could speak of Slav women). I think he wanted to refer to a higher rate of female acceptance.”

    I prefer Malays.

    I have neglected contact with numerous Slavic women which I suspect would make you weep with envy.

    But, you are free to believe what you wish.

    After all, this entire blog is little more than a salient monument to allaying your own festering cognitive dissonance.

    The sad truth is, that you are an evolutionary failure, and nothing you write on this blog will ever change that.

    “Bullshit. No female teen is attracted/interested in dating middle-aged incels.
    That is not what his statistics (see Experimental set-up of female mate choice tests with Nicholas Rejczak as stimulus in various online contexts) and common sense, reveal.”

    Your obvious axe to grind, and failure to consider obvious confounders(suboptimal pictures – poor clothing selection and background), does not make your claims any more credible.

    “Ignore/deny information that conflicts with existing beliefs, and justify the behavior or the cognition, by changing the conflicting cognition.”

    Non sequitur.

    An aversion to to fugs, head-cases and carousel riders begs no further explanation.

    The sad truth is, that you are an evolutionary failure, and nothing you write on this blog will ever change that.

    “Bizarre opinion”

    Not as bizarre as your thinly veiled cherry picking argument.

    I think they are missing you back at Stormfront.org

    “Leaving your own country to move to Philippines would not be the best alternative.”

    Then best to keep you in suspense of my plans.

    “Incels men prefer to bring home his mail order bride. And mainly a pretty girl, preferably caucasian one (Ukrainian, Russian, etc.)”

    Nonsense.

    Their preference is to whinge on blogs, and rail against the cosmic injustice of their deficiencies.

  31. Paragon,

    I have kindly agreed to remove your personal information, because you begged my fellow.

    Moreover I am willing to delete the complete blog if you would grant my request to create your own blog/site.

    On the other hand you would break your word:

    “Anonymous said…

    nSCOURGE, why don’t you start your own blog?
    It would be much easier for us to ignore you then.

    If someone who actually appreciates my arguments would ask me to do so(or if Duncan did), then I would do just that.” —-nSCOURGE, Ethernal Bacherlor.—-

    I believe it would be a reasonable request and you could condescend to it. So we could forget this misunderstanding, where you ignored my first email, and a second one – where I warned to reveal your ID.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s