I have a question. Assuming the 80/20 rule is correct, where do all the children come from? I can not say that 80% of men do not have children.
80% of men have children. Are these all betas? If the alpha men (20%) sleep with 80% of the women, many more children would have to come from these sexual contacts. Even if it is always prevented. I can not tell.
Can someone explain it?
Thank you
[–]OldFashionMarine5 points6 points7 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link
why?
[+][deleted] (7 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[+][deleted] [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link
male, 35 years old, single and never married, no children. I call myself mgtow. But it has always been me. There are some weaknesses in the Mgtow theories. I am interested in truth. The goal of women is to mate with the best genes. The best genes have the 20%. However, there is a fairly homogeneous distribution of children in society. As I said, most men (you would call them betas) have children of their own. In the society there are only 10% cuckoo childs
In other words, in the end, evolution missed the mark. Or say, was extremely inefficient.
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[+][deleted] [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
So you have no answer? Thank you
[–]OldFashionMarine-1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
Thanks for your insults. I am not interested in a political diskussion, only in a scientific one.
Nobody denies that women and men want to reproduce themselves with the best genes / ova.
I'm just saying that the desired results do not show up in reality. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?
We see children of beta fathers. Evolution measures the outcome (children) and not sex
[–]rtmlex2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]pullpork20001 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]IntrovertedMagma1 point2 points3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]IntrovertedMagma1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]IntrovertedMagma1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
Yes, I agree with you in everything.
The only problem is that evolution is interested in preserving the species. Evolution does not matter how much sex someone has. The goal is to breed good genes.
There remains the doubt that these alpha children are simply not seen in society.
If we assume that 80% of all women mate with the 20% best men, the question arises why alpha children are not born to that extent?
At the end I have a different assumption. Nature makes it so that the women mate with the beta men and have children.
Beta men give security and prosperity. And most important: they are ready to stay with the children. They are ready to protect the children in the rearing season.
Alpha men can have every woman, but that's bad for the kids. Alpha men quickly change women and the offspring do not interest them.
For evolution, however, child safety is the most important thing.
[–]IntrovertedMagma0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]WolfgangBreitweit 1 point2 points3 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (8 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]WolfgangBreitweit 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (6 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]WolfgangBreitweit 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
Thanks for your answer, that makes sense.
It is clear that nature has to vary, otherwise the gene pool is depleted.
Impoverishment of the gene pool leads to inbred. It has been scientifically proven that impoverished blood is very bad. Such people are slower in their thinking.
But evolution is interested in intelligence. That's why many more men need to be involved in the gene pool. These are beta men, they are the true alphas.
PS is German your mother tongue?
[–]WolfgangBreitweit 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]WolfgangBreitweit 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
The pareto principle related to the reproduction of humans is based on biology and not economie.
Evolution is a loop and measures only the results. In this case, the new gene pool is measured. But it is not clear that society produces so many children of alpha men. I cant see that.
It is irrelevant if all women only have sex with alpha men or not. It is measured by the genes of the new generation. And this one has beta genes.
Do you see the problem?
[–]WolfgangBreitweit 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]phoneticau1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Origami840 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link
Yes I know that. It goes to the women the alpha men go for sex only.
if they were to produce alphas children, there would be a lot more alpha children. But we do not see that in reality.
Ultimately, women mate with the beta men.
[–]Origami840 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
Straw man argument. I never said that women do not want the best. you have to read correctly. The question is, what are alphas? that was just never defined!! Mgtow terminology and definitions are extremely diffuse.
Was stephen hawking alpha? Did he have good genes? Is the big bathing champion alpha? does he have good genes?
The point is that the 20/80 usually does not affect the reproduction. Women have children with betas. that's a fact. Betaness and intelligence correlate. intelligence and High education (good job) correlate.
It is often said in mgtow that nature passes on the best genes. (Premise1)
The question is, what are good genes?
If you think alphas have the best genes (premise2) this contradicts the first premise. It simply can not be verified in society.
That's exactly the problem with mgtow. Topics are treated only superficially. See the Titanic story. but I write a separate post
[–]Origami840 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
OK. I would also tend to define alpha as you did in your post.
In other words, alpha really means: a man who has achieved something in any area. This can be: size, masculine appearance, intelligence, celebrity (see danny de vito) etc.
And this is where we come to the superficiality and unscientificness of Mgtow theories. There are simply clumsy allegations and false representations included.
An example:
There were attempts made on Tinder (fake profile) in that it could be shown that the women are obviously very interested in the look of the man. I do not doubt that.
The only problem is that now it is said that women are only interested in a man's appearance. And that is defacto wrong, you say it yourself.
This Tinder thing is now taken out of context and misinterpreted. You go so far as to say that men who do not succeed on tinder are beta. But you can not detect something like intelligence over Tinder.
Men get the impression that appearance is the only factor that is wrong.
It is also in the supra that you are the first alpha defined in this way. The overwhelming majority of Mgtow men would speak up. As I said, there is no unified definition that is a bit trashy and needs to be developed further.
90% of Mgtow men would define alpha as follows:
Tall, strong, high cheekbones, male, master bath stereotype, female model etc.
Excuse my devastating english
[–]Origami840 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]pullpork20001 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Sol_Install0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Tahlia11 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
Yes, I think so, too. You can not start from a statistic made in the context of dating sites.
[–]Tahlia11 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
why not? 1) Because Tinder tends to be people who are looking for a quick night out. Tinder is for sex. Then, look is important. This is not representative, because it is only a subset of society. 2) As I said, you can not recognize factors such as social position, finances, intelligence, academics on Tinder (in the first step).
I wonder also what women understand by good looks. Can you say that?
[–]Tahlia11 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]pullpork20001 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link