Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Given the economic prospects of 80% of the US population the suprise is that there have been the number of  conceptions since 2007 that we did. It has been grim for the bottom 80% for decades.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Mar 4th, 2018 at 06:58:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
'that we HAD'

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Mar 4th, 2018 at 06:58:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Bluntly speaking, 80% of males having poor socio-economic and procreation prospects is about the norm for a primate species...

Would you be keen on checking this trend:

These landlords asked me for sex instead of rent -- BBC 3

by das monde on Mon Mar 5th, 2018 at 09:39:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That was irrelevant to those who grew up in a society that did much better. Perhaps had Playboy ran articles about the likely prospects for the bottom 80% if libertarian principles were adopted by government the young males of those times might have been more concerned about the direction public opinion was being driven. Instead, Hugh Hefner equated libertarian with libertine between his centerfold and his Playboy Philosophy while never noting that it usually took money to be a successful libertine.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Mar 6th, 2018 at 04:17:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Or Hefner would have enhanced more dreams of enjoying perks of the (generously) 20% ...
by das monde on Tue Mar 6th, 2018 at 05:13:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The most common for humanity (in documented history, and with all variations existing) is monogamous pairs.

Had to go check for other primates.

Sexual dimorphism in body size
[...] The closer a groups is to being monogamous, the less differences there are between the sexes.

Canine size

The more intense sexual selection is, the larger male canines become compared to females'.

Testes size
[...] Based upon their testes size, humans seem to be tending towards monogamy but they are a little heavier than strictly monogamous species, showing that we're lightly polygynous. This is backed up by data from traditional cultures.

So what is true for gorillas is not true for bonobos, chimps and humans.

by fjallstrom on Wed Mar 7th, 2018 at 11:58:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hush now, it's important to be able to justify being a fucking creep by reference to species we diverged from a long time ago in a lot of ways.

Next you'll be calling the paleo diet into doubt.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Mar 7th, 2018 at 12:00:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Slightly more seriously, I suspect that humans have a spectrum of strategies available as preferences, with the one(s) selected subject to local economic and social circumstances. So monogamy, poly-* etc, with homosexuality and transgender stuff being an expression and/or a feature of that flexibility.  

Problem is, of course, that the choices forced due to one set of economic and social circumstances still hang around when circumstances today. Turns out that the social compact that applied to bronze age herders and farmers doesn't make sense to modern desk jockeys. Who could have predicted.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Mar 7th, 2018 at 12:20:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hypergamy (in a broad sense) is not probed academically at all, unless in hushed ways perhaps. It appears to be sensibly effective in regularly occurring evolutionary and socio-economic conditions.

If you wish to know more, you ought to go through too much information from those certain practitioners:

by das monde on Wed Mar 7th, 2018 at 02:57:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I see twenty references to books or articles on the wikipedia page for hypergamy. I guess they are all hushed up.

Hypergamy

Hypergamy (colloquially referred to as "marrying up") is a term used in social science for the act or practice of a person marrying another of higher caste or social status than themselves.

Hypergamy appears to have very little to do with claims of 80% of primate males not procreating. A very simple way of having men in heterosexual relationships in an predominantly monogamous culture on average have more income and education then the woman, is to have an age gap. Then the man can have achieved higher education and have higher income, while essentially everybody still can end up married during their lifespan.

So what is going on with hypergamy then?

Today most people marry their approximate social equals, and in much of the world hypergamy is in slow decline: for example, it is becoming less common for women to marry older men.

Which should solve the temporary problems of mismatches in societies that are becoming more equal on gender but still have older customs about age and status gaps in marriages.

I didn't watch the whole video. After the introduction I thought that it was unlikely that he would reveal any startling new discoveries into demographical data.

by fjallstrom on Thu Mar 8th, 2018 at 01:38:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
After the introduction I thought that it was unlikely that he would reveal any startling new discoveries into demographical data.

I really must get around to implementing an emoji ratings system.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Mar 8th, 2018 at 02:50:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If only the sociological "marrying up" meaning is considered, then there is a lot of space for hushing up. Focused though obscured selection for higher status or social value has everything to do with 80%. Those who need to know may sweat for those 80 min.
by das monde on Thu Mar 8th, 2018 at 03:18:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You mean that academics use the academic term according to its academic definition (which is apparently more then a hundred years old) instead of using the definition of the man in the video? If so, there are much that is hushed up because there are a lot of terms that is used differently on youtube than in academic papers.

I am sure you can sum up what in this video that supports your idea that "80% of males having poor socio-economic and procreation prospects is about the norm for a primate species". If he shows huge his fangs and small balls and grows to the size of a male gorilla it might be worth watching.

I suspect that you again confuse pick-up artist ideas with demographics. If pick-up artist ideas about demographics doesn't match the records, I suggest you look into if there is actually any foundation for the pick-up artist ideas about demographics.

Maybe pick-up artist ideas in general even turns out to be ye old-fashioned secret to success snake oil, where the true secret to success lies selling bullshit rather then buying bullshit?

by fjallstrom on Fri Mar 9th, 2018 at 04:18:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Other term could be used for what he describes, if you want pure terminology. The "mechanism" is deliberated in the academy, though not enthusiastically, one may say. Perhaps it should be this way. As the topic activity involves specifically deceptive behaviors (such as paternity confusion), just unfocused observation of marriage rates or kindness of bonobos does not falsify or elucidate much.

Experience of coaching PUAs amounts to statistically significant evidence, if science would care to assess. Should progressives pay attention? I may formulate a version of Pascal's Wager: the issue is damn important (and pretty plausible besides) if you care about intelligent vs "deplorable" population genetics in the long term.

by das monde on Fri Mar 9th, 2018 at 05:55:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If "the mechanism" affects births, then that should be measurable by looking at demographics. If it doesn't, then it doesn't.

So, what is your claim here exactly? 80% of kids are born to 20% of males? Don't you think that would have effects that should be visible outside of pickup artists seminars?

by fjallstrom on Mon Mar 12th, 2018 at 01:52:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Culture can be a massive counterweight to this kind of mechanism, evidently. As Robert Anton Wilson said:
It is sometimes mistakenly stated that there are no universal sexual taboos. This is not true. There is one omni-purpose taboo which exists in every tribe. That taboo stipulates that sexuality shall not be unregulated by the tribe.
Perhaps some suppression of sexuality is not that preposterous, after all. Here is a PUA-ish quote:

In the past, many people lived in a brutal patriarchal society where women were forced to be the sexual commodities of rich, powerful, or famous men.

In the present, many people live in a progressive feminist society where women volunteer to be the sexual commodities of rich, powerful, or famous men.

What will be real consequences of the massive feminine empowerment? Rational PUAs basically predict that Pareto picture (if you would really test). Unknowledgeable liberal males would be at real disadvantage then.

Besides, times are getting tougher, as the nanny post-WWII years are gone. That could plausibly be not so much the effect of unfortunate political turns, but a bio-social anticipation that the human tribe is hitting global limitations. Either way, consider this:

(1) Women now handle more resources than ever (perhaps). But resourceful women are not particularly attractive to the men they wish to be attracted to, according to the estrus model.

(2) Liberal males are generally not particularly resourceful, and things are getting worse. Silently they might be sidelined on a massive scale.

Compared to these rational considerations, your assumptions could be mostly wishful thinking.

by das monde on Mon Mar 12th, 2018 at 05:34:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But resourceful women are not particularly attractive to the men they wish to be attracted to, according to the estrus model.

Do you have any actual evidence - not anecdotal - for this? I find it doubtful that men who actually WANT to be married and have children would not be attracted to a resourceful woman. Most of my female in-laws are pretty resourceful and capable women. Overgrown, superannuated male children repel such women, and why should the woman have any confidence that such man-children will be around to help raise any children? You are assuming that married males are all pick-up artists at heart. Some are. But they usually don't stay married and are not particularly attractive even to distressed divorcees. Once burned twice shy.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Mar 12th, 2018 at 07:21:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As far as I can tell, all this nonsense is about justifying being an asshole to women. That's all: immature, sad little men justifying exploiting and abusing the damage society does to women for their own pathetic attempts at sexual gratification.

I'm very inclined to treat it as Jérôme did astrology, and just ban the bullshit from the site.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Mar 12th, 2018 at 09:30:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
PUAs are like "fake news": There is much outrage against, but they give the audience what it actively wants. For better or worse.

"Gaming" maturity is their secret. At least, they know what they are doing, in contrast to intellectual creeps.

by das monde on Tue Mar 13th, 2018 at 03:42:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
China's Sheng-nu phenomenon is a vast example. The West does not put social pressure, but the same tendency is observable: the more educated and accomplished a woman is, the smaller pool of men may suit her. Self-asserted women would rather freeze their eggs than settle for a real guy from around.

Which views rely more on anecdotical evidence: that families with women as principal breadwinners are totally fine, or not at all? It is yet easier to settle maturely for a marriage than make a childbearing compromise. Divorce rates are "scarily" growing, and women initiate a great majority of them. They seem to enjoy indignation towards "subpar" husbands rather ruthlessly.

The whole demographical transition to lower birthrates has a more detailed explanation in the theory that more educated women are much more choosy and (at least) less enthusiastic with bearing children with men of about equal status. UN data says that we just reached peak baby, with significant exception in Africa only, where prospects for improving status, the living standard or marrying up are still well believable.

For the rational PUA frame on this, you may check the 25:55-33:00 part in this video. (If you continue to listen, you may learn about his marriage.)

by das monde on Tue Mar 13th, 2018 at 03:06:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
China's 'one child' policy, combined with the cultural prejudice in favor of male children, has, as predicted, produced a demographic problem with too few women in the age cohort. Naturally the resulting problems become more exacerbated the higher one goes on any metric, intelligence, socially desirable appearance, education, wealth...

I certainly will not criticize any Chinese woman for her choices regarding reproduction. That is her choice and horny males can go fuck themselves if she is not interested in them.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Mar 13th, 2018 at 05:45:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
for who? My child spent the summer of '16 with a Beijing family. The mother had five siblings.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Mar 13th, 2018 at 06:11:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thus "men who actually WANT to be married and have children" are too horny. Eurotrash is not particularly attractive either.

"I would rather cry in a BMW than laugh on a bicycle."

by das monde on Wed Mar 14th, 2018 at 05:41:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hippocrates, On Airs, Waters, and Places, Pt.14

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Mar 13th, 2018 at 06:26:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The whole demographical transition to lower birthrates has a more detailed explanation in the theory that more educated women are much more choosy and (at least) less enthusiastic with bearing children with men of about equal status. UN data says that we just reached peak baby, with significant exception in Africa only, where prospects for improving status, the living standard or marrying up are still well believable.

So instead of children per woman decreasing evenly, you would have one group of women continuing having many children and another ot having any? Right?

Sounds totally off base to me, but it is a testable statement. Now go see if you can find data that supports your statement.

by fjallstrom on Tue Mar 13th, 2018 at 10:37:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why would you assume that "children per woman" would decrease somewhat evenly?

Comparing sizes of rich patriarchal families with families of highly successful women would be interesting  -- but I have choices on whom to work for. Is there any update on conservative versus liberal families?

In nature, females of hierarchical species typically do not reproduce evenly at all. What happens in the next 5 minutes in this video should not be surprising.

by das monde on Wed Mar 14th, 2018 at 05:21:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The new Oxford Handbook of Evolution, Biology, and Society is highly recommendable.

Evolution and Human Reproduction
Section "Social Status, Wealth, and Reproduction" is what we are talking about.

Evolution, Societal Sexism, and Universal Average Sex Differences in Cognition and Behavior

contrary to most scientists' expectations, these so-called universal sex differences have been shown to be more pronounced in Western industrial societies than in most non-Western developing societies

by das monde on Sat Mar 17th, 2018 at 04:33:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Population genomic analysis of elongated skulls reveals extensive female-biased ["]immigration["] in Early Medieval Bavaria

Artificial Cranial Deformation (AC): This phenotypical modification is found worldwide but not commonly associated with eurocentric, "Aryan" lineage, because. Mating "selection" is explicitly and implicitly expressed in the inferences, denoting "exogamy" in search of "status".

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Mar 13th, 2018 at 06:22:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
because territorial border enforcement.

With that relatively modern constraint on human "natural selection" in mind, you may be interested in reading or re-reading Totem and Taboo.

Freud's theories of repressed sexuality and suppressed incest aversion among Victorian individuals, drawn from the patronizing ethnographic monographs of the day, appears to me very much alive in eurocentric fixations with "legitimate" offspring, over-population, proprietary claims to female reproductive capability, M/F genital "mutilations", so-called sexual revolution.

"Meme" to think of the next time one "consumes" fertility statistics.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Mar 13th, 2018 at 08:47:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How shall I put this: I'm not spending one second of my increasingly precious time watching some git with questionable fashion sense on a video entitled "The Rational Male" for any reason.

<le sigh>

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Mar 8th, 2018 at 02:49:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Topics in this subthread are discussed in detail in Sarah Hrdy's book Mother Nature, A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection. Subject matter references to historical (read: written) polemical proscriptions and comparative evolutionary theories of mating selection (read: discrimination, voluntary and involuntary), from early 18th cen to early 21st cen, are mostly eurocentric, judeo-christian. However the author persuasively demonstrates (i) mating (any species) has never been mostly monogamous and (ii) selection parameters (discrimination, strategy) on both sexes are mostly exogenous, eg. location, infanticide, "hypergamy" --in other words, calculated probability of survival, self and progeny. Not so romantic.

The wikipedia article is facile. The claim "Today most people marry their approximate social equals, and in much of the world hypergamy is in slow decline: for example, it is becoming less common for women to marry older men" is preposterous, given contemporary, eurocentric pretext for "marriage" still reduce to exchange of property -- accumulated "wealth" assigned to each "partner"-- whether or not they procreate!

As for pre-historic information contributing to evolutionary theories of selection, polemicists are decidedly "anti-science." Even my daughter's noticed this. Genomic data exploration is full of ... interesting suppositions derived from "genetic flow" calculations said to describe mating selection criteria, to concentrate OR diversify risk of survival.

The complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains.

We conclude that the parents of this Neandertal individual were either half-siblings who had a mother in common, double first cousins, an uncle and a niece, an aunt and a nephew, a grandfather and a granddaughter, or a grandmother and a grandson
as was the custom. Good luck with that and the cannibalism thing.


Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Fri Mar 9th, 2018 at 08:09:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series