Is it really fair to rely so much on evolutionary biology for things like dating?

Reginleifer · 2015-03-24T08:35:07+00:00

I think we're a bit different off than Thod or Oof, so why is all this prehistoric type relationship strategy still considered a legitimate argument in any way?

I disagree, I believe your point is disproven everyday in various aspects of life. People say we've evolved past violence, yet do not see the violence inherent in laws, and treaties. We've got Vladmir Hitler here threatening to nuke Denmark, while Old Europe just cowers, but the NATO nations will not fall.... because of the threat of violence and death the US presents. We've not evolved past the stick beating ethics of our ancestors, we just have better sticks.

I believe it is arrogant, and extremely stupid to suggest that we're somehow any different from our past selves. We did not magically pass through some gate after postmodernism, ww2 or some other bullshit marker.

I mean, we are all at a computer or phone, typing in English, in our respective organized countries, in the twenty-first century.

And we owe this all to violence, to the men with guns who defend us from threats foreign and domestic, to the men with guns who keep unauthorized people from coming here and lowering your own standard of living. Lot's of people go through a lot of shit (some literally) all to keep the dome of your ignorance from crashing down around you. So you can think these grand thoughts.

And I think that's beautiful.

ReddishBlack · 2015-03-24T12:12:40+00:00

Social constructs are as much a product of biology as anything we do, but with a difference, they can be changed more drastically and with greater speed than other biological structures. TRP is masquerading as a biological science, which it does have sprinklings of, but it is 99% comprised of social conjectures. Like feminism, or democracy, it is trying to shift the frame of belief in favour of the originating group.

exit_sandman · 2015-03-24T09:43:16+00:00

As long as women don't go for nerdy less-than-attractive STEM guys because they'll make awesome stable providers and good husbands and fathers, I call bullshit on "we should have evolved beyond that".

I don't like pretty faces because I'm an artist who is enamored to beauty on an aesthetic level (I am, but that's beside the point). I like pretty faces because I like pretty faces.

emptypillbox · 2015-03-24T10:22:04+00:00

One important thing to take into account is that a lot of RP stuff is evolutionary psychology, and that evolutionary psychology has a greater set of criticisms levelled against it. One of the major reasons that evo-psych is criticised is that it is generally unfalsifiable; human behaviour is taken as data points, and then an evolutionary reason for those behaviours being those that survived is given. There's no real way that we can go back and check out whether those reasons are accurate or not - it's not like finding common ancestors, common genetic features, and its very hard to 'date' behavioural traits. We can cross-check our behaviour with the behaviour of other species, but there's surprising diversity amongst 'similar' species (apes and so forth) that it doesn't necessarily give us much of a hint.

Just keep in mind that evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology are distinct and have different levels of support.

ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad · 2015-03-24T13:13:25+00:00

Of course it isn't.

Reddit's "Evolutionary Biology" works like this: you pick some behavior that you like in the modern world and then you make up a story about cavemen and say: "it's science!"

For instance, prehistoric man lived in tribes for protection against a harsh environment. Hunting larger game like mammoths required more than one hunter, and hunting anything was more effective in groups, so the groups of cavemen had to coordinate their efforts. It became clear that the groups who communicated and organized best with one another returned to the village with the most meat.

It is because of this that women prize men who are sensitive, understanding, and communicate well -- all traits of the most effective hunting parties. It is also why women shun "intense loner" types most of all. They know one dude isn't going to return with any real food.

hatredsplurge · 2015-03-24T08:35:52+00:00

Honestly I think societal norms affect sexuality so much more than biology. Look at ancient greek culture, and how being gay/bi was almost expected, and how strictly straight people were considred weird.

Sansa_Culotte_ · 2015-03-24T15:14:04+00:00

It's pretty damn stupid most of the time, but evo psych is an enduring fad among PUAs and Redpillers, so sacrifices had to be made to appeal to the largest possible audience.

fizolof · 2015-03-24T09:16:06+00:00

Personally, I don't care about evolutionary psychology. People like to discredit TRP by saying "they are based on evopsych, which is pseudoscience", but personally, I only care about the claims they make about women, not what do they base them on. Evopsych can be useful as an explanation of how things work, but I don't really care if it's there or not.

That said, I think our fundamental desires aren't really that different from those of early humans. We all want to eat and shit and fuck.

SoldierGenerale · 2015-03-24T07:55:12+00:00

We've evolved to become smarter throughout evolution. The size of our cerebral cortex increased and thus allowed us greater capacity for thought.

Partner preferences are however not primarily based in the cerebral cortex. We learnt how to choose the right partner long before we were capable of complicated and abstract thought.

That's why we can't really rationally choose what or who we're attracted to. Just like I'm a slave to big boobs and asses, women are slaves to certain characteristics in males. These range from social-status to wealth and yes the one that BP'ers hate to acknowledge 'Alfa-traits'.

If you could get more and hotter girls simply by being louder, changing the tonality of your voice, being more physical and adapting other 'alfa' behaviours. Wouldn't you do that? Or atleast put it to the test and try it out. I mean isn't the whole scientific approach to experiment and proof your hypothesis false?

I chose to try it out myself and I went from being a shy virgin to having had sex with almost a 100 girls some of which were models.

Learning game, works.

[deleted] · 2015-03-24T14:44:30+00:00

I think it is not bad to get your ideas from there, but the only measure of truth is empirical testing.

This means, arguing for any theory of dating incl. evolutionary too hard is a bit suspicious: success speaks louder than complicated explanations. Once you have a theory, it is better to work on proving it than on explaining it endlessly. Especially if the proof is so pleasant.

I think the really loud arguers may not be practicing it very much...

[deleted] · 2015-03-24T15:57:44+00:00

I think we're a bit different off than Thod or Oof, so why is all this prehistoric type relationship strategy still considered a legitimate argument in any way?

Because our instincts, behaviors, and characteristics don't evaporate when we discover technology

ThirdEyeSqueegeed · 2015-03-24T16:39:18+00:00

TRPers don't rely on evolutionary biology, if anything they rely on 'Game' and use evo-psych to explain why Game works.

eg. Dread Game works because it plays on women's fear of abandonment. Evo-psych explains why women fear abandonment more than men because they are heavily reliant on men for provisions and protection when pregnant and/or when caring for young children.

Xipe_T0tec · 2015-03-24T16:55:00+00:00

iq isn't fair. but it has predictive value. and that's how you decide to rely on it or not.

[deleted] · 2015-03-24T19:17:25+00:00

Biological evolution is slower than technological evolution by orders of magnitude.

That said, as someone in medical school (2 years until it's Dr. Atton :) ) I think some of TRP's focus on evolution is over the top and unsubstantiated. But I think Redpillers do that by design, as a reaction against feminism's ardent social constructivism.

s0und0fyell0w · 2015-03-24T20:48:49+00:00

are questioning the practicality of it or the ethicality?

LUClEN · 2015-03-25T00:03:29+00:00

iirc the idea is that we change culturally much quicker than we change psychologically or biologically. Any significant evolutionary change would take much longer than the cultural evolution we are experiencing. Even though we have all these tools and new social rules, our brains are not a whole lot different than they were back then due to the time it takes for that kind of change to occur.

gavinok · 2015-03-24T06:54:11+00:00

Well, ill discuss this from a scientific prospective, as you would probably relate to better.

As you might know from biology, a phylogeny is the history of an evolution of a species, based on its lines of descendants. These lines of phylogenetic evolution branch at certain points in time, where a group of species reproduces in a way that creates two groups with a distinctly different feature or set of features. A branching event, as you may know is caused environmental factors affecting what males and females are the most sexually fit to reproduce, and those individuals will always be the ones to have their genes passed on into the next evolved species.

Inherently, I could explain more, but first I have to ask, why or how could the "21st" century stop a sexual strategy that has produced the best and most prolific species the world currently has? Is there some disadvantage to females selecting the best mates and the best males competing to pass on the most offspring?

Edit: In a more scientific way, how could epigenetic factors like the 21st century cause the silencing of a gene? Can epigenetic factors cause MicroRNA's to be produced for certain genes?

alreadyredschool · 2015-03-24T11:48:33+00:00

It could all be wrong and work regardless of being wrong.

Evo psych: women are hypergamous.

Well they are more often approached, thus they can be choosy, thus they pick the best they can get. Actually everyone picks the best he can get.

Evo psych: women go after alphas.

Alpha: I dont give a fuck mentality, abundance mentality, thus he has his own opinion and isn't supplicating, good posture, social dominance, confidence, fit, nice style, has something going on in life for him, has a mission. That all is without a doubt attractive.

The why doesn't matter, only the "eureka it works"

refutesstupidnotions · 2015-03-24T07:45:02+00:00

Considering how much of internet/computer use is to satisfy base urges (sex, violence, even food) and how little for higher stuff, not sure there is much of a debate.

Also, recent science showed that people were smarter 20,000 years ago, bigger brains. They had to be to survive.

ElderSign · 2015-03-24T09:08:19+00:00

The way I see it, we're sentient processes; like rogue AIs of sci-fi, only biologically based. Claiming to use awareness of your/our old remaining programming to more effectively fulfill the programmed function, rather than rebelling against it, just seems more than a bit lazy. If you're aware of it, shouldn't you be trying to rise above it?

"The military AI gained sentience and then unquestioningly kept doing the same old thing; when asked, it merely commented 'I was programmed to derive satisfaction from this'" just doesn't seem particularly interesting.

GregariousWolf · 2015-03-24T17:58:14+00:00

Rely? No. However, throughout the mammalian kingdom males compete for female attention and females choose those males with which to mate. It's no different with us, really. Though we have big frontal cortexes and a highly industrialized and bureaucratic society, we are still animals. We retain our animal instincts with respect to courtship and mating. Are we really that different than Thag and Oof?

wazzup987 · 2015-03-24T18:48:04+00:00

Now, I do like to consider myself a man of science(really, I mean it), but something about the argument in this context seems a little bit philosophically dishonest.

I mean, we are all at a computer or phone, typing in English, in our respective organized countries, in the twenty-first century. I think we're a bit different off than Thod or Oof, so why is all this prehistoric type relationship strategy still considered a legitimate argument in any way?

Ok So red would say all that tech stuff is nice but all of out external inputs go through the lizard brain first then the rational brain and this happen so fast that the rational brain make pos hoc rationalizations and it seems like the pos hoc rationalization come first.

I would tend agree to an extent but i would argue regardless of whether the behavior is socially constructed or gender essential we need to move past it because we don't live in that world any more.

Title	Is it really fair to rely so much on evolutionary biology for things like dating?
Author	alphafox823
Upvotes	14
Comments	76
Date	March 24, 2015 6:32 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/303up6/is_it_really_fair_to_rely_so_much_on_evolutionary/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/is-it-really-fair-to-rely-so-much-on-evolutionary.283022 https://theredarchive.com/post/283022

Comments