More on quantblogger foolishness in regards to game

Whiskey brings the pain over at Mangan’s:

My first problem with Audacious Epigone is that he/she uses the webtools of the GSS instead of downloading the data and looking at it through something like say, MySQL to view the individual observations. To get a reality check on how many observations by classification per year. Sometimes they are astonishingly small. Small numbers of observations can induce errors. Not seen in the Web tools.

My second problem is that AE and Agnostic assume a static-state strategy for reproduction, when we have ample evidence that this is not so: Blacks in America had an illegitimacy rate of 24% in the 1960’s, compared to over 70% nationwide and 90% in the urban core today. White British working class folks had illegitimacy rates very low, now approaching Blacks. Whites had a rate of 2-4% illegitimacy rate in the 1960’s, now approaching 40% for the White Working Class according to Charles Murray. Europeans according to both Keeley (War Before Civilization) and Wade (Before the Dawn) were polygamous, with few men reproducing, and only switched during Christianity. Ghengis Khan or his contemporary has produced through direct male descent 8.3% of the men in and around Mongolia — an astonishing number if you work backwards (Khan must have monopolized the sexual services of nearly all women then in those areas).

My THIRD problem is that AE IGNORES the issues of environmental change: contraception, independence of income (no need for Dads/support) and anonymous urban living (no social shame) that give women, for the first time EVER in history near total freedom. NEARLY TOTAL FREEDOM. To not expect massive changes in behavior with removal of all constraints, is just plain illogical.

My FOURTH problem is that correlation is not causation, i.e. fewer sex partners can be correlated with White/Muslim/Indian religious/family control over women, something not seen in Black women where MORE sex partners equals MORE babies. I.E. a conservative, Muslim women who has few (one basically) sex partner and is very religious will have quite a number of women (in Yemen the TFR rate is around 8). Those not so religious, in urban areas with anonymity and rising incomes and available contraception, will have few (in Iran, Tunisia, and Algeria the number is below replacement and around 1.7). BUT, Black women in the urban core have more kids than highly educated Black women with fewer sex partners.

Thursday — Human history did not start yesterday. We are in fact moving towards the usual state of affairs — most men being locked out of reproduction and investment in society, making them violent, dangerous, and prone to periodic overthrows of civilization. MOST of human history is women plus elites vs. Joe Average trying to game resource distribution and reproduction. That’s basically the story of the human race after agriculture.

N/A — You ignore Black Ghetto women, British Women, and increasingly White US women, who are having illegitimate kids, in very chaotic and unstable (unlike Scandi nations) cohabitation if that, with whoever excites them the most. You need to go onto women’s forums, such as D-listed, or TMZ, and see the type of stuff posted to get women off the pedestal you built for them. CLEARLY, the trend for the younger cohort is much more sex, casually, with reproduction being whoever is sexiest, and the single mother as model. There is no “quality women” — Christian women cheat, become single mothers, and so on at rates exceeding that of their non-religious peers. Marriage has been redefined to a temporary partnership between a hot woman and a “Kitchen Bitch” who takes care of the kids (by other men) while the woman has “passionate affairs” and that model is basically, dead, defaulting to single motherhood.

Aaron — You don’t understand the nature of T vs. IQ. The sweet spot for High T is median IQ. Moving away from median, you get the same level of T at 140 IQ as you do with a Short Bus rider of 60 IQ. Your hipster girls are banging High T alphas on the side, without question. Reality check — we are indeed animals, and the main environment we interact with is our social one. Darwin DOES apply to us, as it does to all living things.

TGGP — My criticism of Malloy is that his model is too simplistic and requires static over time behavior that is binary, for both men and women, and lacks any predictive power. For example, China has more men than women, and is a hypergamous hell with HOARDING of women by high officials. Same in India, Saudi Arabia, and indeed the Arabian peninsula where men outnumber women yet 33% of all marriages are polygamous. Women can and WILL share with other women a superior man in power/status. Moreover, such men can use force/power to construct harems. Meanwhile, men facing competition from other men with resource disparities fall into “toffs vs. ruffians” models, with crime/violence/brutality checking and/or equaling status, or simply using force to break apart harems.

Moreover, WHY would a woman with her own money, income, anonymous living, and birth control WANT a provider? When she can HAVE HER CAD without need for a provider? If Malloy’s models were right, we would see China filled with law abiding men competing over provider status instead of the seething cauldron of violence it is. Japan with it’s relatively equal sex ratio should see men catting about instead of acting as withdrawn “herbivores” devouring ugly hentai porn, featuring school girls violated by tentacles. Heck the US ought to have most men catting about with an equal sex ratio, yet most guys in the US post-College go years between women. Meanwhile, the Black Ghetto with Jail removing many men from the sexual marketplace, is characterized by an ultra-violent competition over women. Rather than simple catting around. What do you think those killings are about?

Malloy’s model lacks any predictive power — so no matter the emotional satisfaction that putting women on pedestals gives, the model is useless in understanding human sexual behavior.