TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

10 Truths About Human Nature That Validate Red Pill

magicalbird

November 2, 2013
99 upvotes
/r/TheRedPill
Archived from /r/TheRedPill

r/TheRedPill is a subreddit for discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/TheRedPill archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title 10 Truths About Human Nature That Validate Red Pill
Author

magicalbird

Upvotes 99
Comments 60
Date November 2, 2013 2:57 PM UTC
(12 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1pr237/10_truths_about_human_nature_that_validate_red/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/10-truths-about-human-nature-that-validate-red.232630
https://theredarchive.com/post/232630
Red Pill terms in post
the red pill
Top posts by magicalbird

Study: Young, Single, Childless Women Earn More Than Men

417 upvotes
October 27, 2013
/r/MensRights

Being a Man is a Lonely Business [Endure]

243 upvotes
October 27, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Men don't start at the same place

71 upvotes
May 13, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

The Best Attitude For Successfully Dating The Modern Single Woman

50 upvotes
November 4, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

Why Many Don't Believe

49 upvotes
November 2, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

22 Things That Men Should Be Required To Do

44 upvotes
October 27, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

The Red Pill Obliterates Oneitis

37 upvotes
December 8, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

Study: Young, Single, Childless Women Earn More Than Men

37 upvotes
October 27, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

Comments

[–]Robertooshka 30 points31 points32 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

It is so true, if there are a lot of men with no chance of getting a wife/woman, there will be a lot more violence in that country. I had a thought the other day, maybe the reason we live in a monogamous society is that more men will be useful to the society and not just be violent in order to try to get enough resources to get a woman.

[–]pro_skub 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Maybe. Also age is another important factor in political instability. There are studies that show a positive correlation between a country's average age and it's political stability, which relates to the crime-age curve point.

[–]Robertooshka 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well that is just because younger people are more anti-status quo. I was just thinking of the difference between gorillas and bonobos. Gorillas have a alpha male with a harem of females. Obviously there are gonna be single male gorillas wandering around alone or with other bachelors. Bonobos live in groups with males and females and they pretty much have orgies all the time. If a group of gorillas were like bonobos, would they be a stronger group and be able to defeat the other gorillas?

[–]iBendYourSpoon 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They may have more cohesive groups in the short-term, however their genes might suffer long-term because alpha and beta characteristics would be bred much more often than in the harem style mating where mostly alpha traits are passed.

[–]Robertooshka 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am pretty sure that I would rather not live in a harem style mating society. I don't think that the genes would be so harmed.

[–]vaker 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This is another reason why traditional marriage developed and was accepted/promoted by society. It creates a more stable and productive society.

With the campaign against marriage and the current trend of young females focusing on a smaller set of males (20%) expect more violence and less productivity down the road.

[–]magicalbird7 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's so ironic how they want free love and peace although only the top 20% of men are allowed.

[–]Robertooshka 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I always find it amusing when women complain about how a member of the 20% left her for another girl. Well what did you think was gonna happen.

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes. Marriage was to unlock beta production in the society. Naturally, 20% of the males will have 80% of the women due to hypergamy (women would rather share an Alpha than be with a loving but weak-willed beta). By forcing marriage on the alphas, women turn to the next best guy, lock him down, and so on and on.

A sexually frustrated lonely beta will be less likely to work 50 hour weeks because he only needs to support himself (and he is not spending all his money on curtains and fluffy hand towels you aren't supposed to use).

However, a beta that's married will be supporting his family. He'll work harder and more of his money will be spent in the economy for those fluffy hand towels you aren't supposed to use.

[–]TRP VanguardVZPurp 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I know plenty of guys who have essentially opted out because they feel they stand no chance with women. So they neither go after women nor contribute to society beyond what is necessary to fund their life and their hobbies, which doesn't take much money at all, when it comes down to it.

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It doesn't take much at all. In fact, they are putting less into the system than they are taking out (costs more tax dollars to support him eg. police protection, fire protection, etc that he's putting in). Aggregated over a population will lead to unsustainable benefits being cut.

We're already subsidizing women and children who choose their "independence" over the father(s) of their children. To remedy this a bit, draconian child/mommy support policies were put in place to force the beta to work as if he was still happily married. Whether or not he's miserable is irrelevant. As long as he's working to his maximum potential (in some cases due to fear of imprisonment), the government is happy.

A society like ours needs betas working to their maximum potential to subsidize everyone else. It cannot maintain current levels of more and more betas drop out of the game altogether and live frugally.

You can think those groups that worked to destroy marriage for this situation.

[–]cooledcannon -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Seems a better strategy would be to have older guys fuck multiple young girls, and have a constantly increasing population. Or even if possible, have a system where 70%+ of babies born are girls. Then guys can be polygamous AND most guys would have at least one girl.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Bingo. That's one of the core princibles of a functioning society.

[–]Robertooshka 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It is funny how you have to limited female sexual freedom to have a functioning society.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Women are not exempt from carrying out responsibility for a functioning society.

[–]Robertooshka 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

wait, I thought they were.

[–]Ommin 26 points27 points28 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I enjoyed the way this was written. Very few mentions of "feminism" "patriarchy" "rape" and all the common buzz-words; the ones that people see an automatically think "I'm for/against this article's message!". Leaving it open, hopefully, allows for it to be accepted by someone who might not accept it immediately, which is kind of the goal here right?

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sign of a decent author just reporting the facts instead of using their column as a soapbox.

[–]ahrepna6 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually, what they did is pass their opinion off as facts. That's not to say I disagree with what he said, but a lot of it was without any proof, mere speculation.

[–]magicalbird11 points 12 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

3 proves how those who claim to be into polyamory want to bring things back to an r-type environment:

Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy

When there is resource inequality among men—the case in every human society—most women benefit from polygyny: women can share a wealthy man. Under monogamy, they are stuck with marrying a poorer man.

The only exceptions are extremely desirable women. Under monogamy, they can monopolize the wealthiest men; under polygyny, they must share the men with other, less desirable women. However, the situation is exactly opposite for men. Monogamy guarantees that every man can find a wife. True, less desirable men can marry only less desirable women, but that's much better than not marrying anyone at all.

Men in monogamous societies imagine they would be better off under polygyny. What they don't realize is that, for most men who are not extremely desirable, polygyny means no wife at all, or, if they are lucky, a wife who is much less desirable than one they could get under monogamy.

[–]Endorsed Contributor30303030303030 19 points20 points21 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

When there is resource inequality among men—the case in every human society—most women benefit from polygyny: women can share a wealthy man. Under monogamy, they are stuck with marrying a poorer man.

We all know this and still, it's wrong to call woman a whore since she is basically selling her ass for the biggest possible price. They simply value "ambition" and "resourcefulness". When men chase young, under 20, girls we are "creeps", "peter pans" and "childish".

What they don't realize is that, for most men who are not extremely desirable, polygyny means no wife at all, or, if they are lucky, a wife who is much less desirable than one they could get under monogamy.

Having no wife doesn't seem like a problem to me. Reason why monogamy is enforced by law in majority of countries is purely economical. Married man works harder and longer, puts money into breeding new tax payers, aka children, pays mortgage and buys more food. You don't need a lot of money to keep one single man alive and that's bad for the economy.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Having no wife doesn't seem like a problem to me. Reason why monogamy is enforced by law in majority of countries is purely economical. Married man works harder and longer, puts money into breeding new tax payers, aka children, pays mortgage and buys more food. You don't need a lot of money to keep one single man alive and that's bad for the economy.

In order to turn a human being, into this

We've been living in a dream world...

That being said, I still want to get married someday with the right woman.

[–]magicalbird5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

We all know this and still, it's wrong to call woman a whore since she is basically selling her ass for the biggest possible price.

Other RPers write about their experience in poly circles and some of these attractive women want to lock the few attractive men down which is proof of the ultimate hamster.

[–]luxury_banana 21 points22 points23 points 12 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

Satoshi Kanazawa is a pretty legit evolutionary psychologist who's posted a lot of such things, it's too bad that he got removed from psychologytoday for ruffling feathers by exploring what demographics are seen as the least sexually attractive, as most of the content on PT is a wasteland of just-so assertions backed by little to no evidence or even basic logic.

[–]30years 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

what demographics are seen as the least sexually attractive

Do you have a link to the study or article you are referring to? I would like to read it.

[–]luxury_banana 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

It was removed from PT.

From Wikipedia on the issue:

In May 2011, he published an article in Psychology Today that explored why black women had been rated less attractive than those of other races in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Subsequent critical independent analysis of the results showed that the difference in assessed attractiveness held for three of the four data sets in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and that there was only a statistically significant race difference in younger women and that it disappeared by early adulthood.[15] Applying his same reasoning to males, Kanazawa also concluded in his article that Black men would generally be considered more attractive.

The article caused outrage and was widely criticized. The first criticisms were published in the blogosphere leading to the creation of petitions on change.org and facebook to have Kanazawa sacked.[16] But also other scientists, including a group of evolutionary psychologists publishing a joint statement published criticisms, distancing the discipline of Evolutionary psychology from Kanazawa's research.[5] Psychology Today pulled the article and on May 27, 2011, issued an apology to anyone who had been offended and stated that they had not reviewed Kanazawa's article before its publication,[17] and stated that they would police more strictly for controversial content in the future.[7]

In September 2011, Kanazawa apologized to LSE director Judith Rees, saying he "deeply regrets" the "unintended consequences" of the blog and accepting that "some of [his] arguments may have been flawed and not supported by the available evidence". An internal LSE investigation found that Kanazawa had brought the school into disrepute and prohibited him from publishing in non-peer-reviewed outlets for a year.[18]

Following the controversy, an open letter was signed by 68 evolutionary psychologists distancing themselves from Kanazawa and defending evolutionary psychology, writing "The principle of applying evolutionary theory to the study of human psychology and behaviour is sound, and there is a great deal of high-quality, nuanced, culturally-sensitive evolutionary research ongoing in the UK and elsewhere today".[5] In response, an international group of 23 scientists published a letter in Times Higher Education defending Kanazawa's work.[19]

Here's a link to the mega damage control PC article that was posted afterwards: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201105/black-women-are-not-rated-less-attractive-our-independent-analysis-the-a

[–]incraved 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't get it man. I would go as far as saying that it's a fact that most men find black women less attractive. To me, it's just common sense, they are simply less attractive... it has nothing to do with racism I have nothing against them, I (and most I met) simply find them less attractive.

I hate when people just want to cover the truth because it hurts. I'm shorter than 5'10" and I know for a fact that it makes me less desirable, I don't lie to myself, it's simply a fact that women prefer tall men. It's also an obvious thing that most men find black women generally unattractive.

[–]Kharn0 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Maybe it has to do with the fact that the majority of black women in the US are overweight and poor.

[–]incraved 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think that's the main reason, though.

[–]FortunateBum 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So was Kanazawa wrong or is everyone simply covering their asses? Doesn't OK Cupid's data find the same thing?

[–]luxury_banana 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They were covering their asses from the shitstorm created by "social justice" bullies who were pissed off that anybody would even dare research such a subject.

[–]30years 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for posting this!

[–]vaker 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just go to any porn site and check the ratio of black actresses...

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Socrates, Galileo... Why does this all seem so familiar and at the same time pathetic.

[–]1wakethfkupneo 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

TIL I'm beautiful, poor and likely to get divorced (two daughters)

On a serious note #8 really hit me, being a married man soon to hit 40 and not getting enough sex 10 years into marriage (I now understand why and that's how I found TRP int he first place). My reaction? I suddenly felt the urge to do some major changes in my life, I even started working out (never considered it in my 20s). There's some weird feeling as if I'm young again, like a bear waking up from hibernation. And yea, it's definitely motivated by sex (or lack thereof). Also worth mentioning is a high school friend of mine who got a GF on the side after his wife kept denying him sex and the two of them almost divorced, wife even moved out with kids ... only to decide to give each other another chance. Watch out young (wo)men from TRP - when you get to "mid age", expect shit to hit the fan.

[–]FortunateBum 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I just want to point out that in the western world, as many anthropologists have pointed, we have a form of polygamy that is practiced in a serial fashion through divorce, alimony, child-support.

[–]Jack_Sophmore 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's serial monogamy not polygamy.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

the part about the mid life crisis blew my mind

[–]cagethepepper 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And it makes sense. I've seen it happen and it checks out.

[–]SnowOnYourFace 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I would love to see more articles like this here. In David Deangelo's Advanced Series they talk a lot about evolutionary psychology and it's what first got me into the subject. Thanks for reminding me. Sex at Dawn and Richard Dawkin's Selfish Gene are also great reads if you like this sort of intersection of science and mating.

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Read "The Red Queen"

[–]SnowOnYourFace 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks, I'll check it out.

[–]bigyellowtwinki 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The case for why Muslim men are suicide bombers is particularly damning. I had never considered the sex angle before, that is, the lack of sex while still living as opposed to the promise of sex after martyrdom.

[–]luxury_banana 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

It's not even necessarily that they believe that shit about 72 virgins. It's that they live in a culture which permits high status men to have four wives which leaves many men with no hope of fulfilling their biological imperative within the rules of the society and can drive them to do some crazy shit such as join extremist organizations. Their choices are essentially join extremist organizations and use violence to attempt to get resources/status/whatever or try the "sneaky fucker" strategy in a society where by law they will be beheaded if caught, and given that women have a predisposition towards disliking low status males unless they are extremely physically attractive this is not a good idea for most of the men affected by this problem.

Polygyny is bad news because it in part helps create violent, unstable societies.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It also illuminates why we don't see suicide bombers from Turkey--a monogamous society where the overwhelming majority are Muslims. But, it could also be the established secular political climate. Or their combinatorial force, who knows. (And, yeah, I'm from Turkey, that's why it came to my mind.)

[–]ThorLives 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would think the whole "sex angle" would be easy to test. I can think of a few muslim suicide bombers that had wives, though, so I'd question the validity of this claim.

For example, here's the profile of the London 7/7 bombers:

  • 18 years old, unmarried (though a bit young to be killing yourself for women; who knows what the next 10 years would bring) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasib_Hussain

  • 30 year-old, married with at least one child. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Sidique_Khan

  • 19 years-old, married. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germaine_Lindsay

  • 22 years-old, had a three-year girlfriend whom he had been sleeping with, but it's not clear if they were still together at the time of the bombings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shehzad_Tanweer

At this point, I think the claim falls under "the theory makes sense, but the empirical data seems to suggest that it's false".

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The irony is that none of the above is true any longer. Through face-lifts, wigs, liposuction, surgical breast augmentation, hair dye, and color contact lenses, any woman, regardless of age, can have many of the key features that define ideal female beauty. And men fall for them. Men can cognitively understand that many blond women with firm, large breasts are not actually 15 years old, but they still find them attractive because their evolved psychological mechanisms are fooled by modern inventions that did not exist in the ancestral environment.

This seems to be the same as woman falling for 'game' and seduction techniques.

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's exactly the same, which is why I find PUA-hating women so hilarious as they adjust their push-up bra before going out to the meat markets

[–]SpinalArt 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I feel like a connection can be made between the point that suicide bombers are mostly muslim and the increasing trend of shooters who kill themselves after they've killed a lot of people. I remember reading the Aurora shooter guy was/felt rejected with his online dating profile. The kid from Newton(?) was raised by a single gun happy mother who I assume carried a lot of masculine energy. It can always be said that they were crazy, off meds, in a gun happy country where boys learn to kill through violent video games However* being that shootings seem to be a weekly thing now in the U.S. I think it's time to look deeper into this issue. After the LAX shooting I commented to someone to expect this to happen more and more and to consider it to be the start of something like the male rebellion period.

[–]VodkaTankerSpill -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Absolutely agree. I wonder if any of this could have been prevented had those boys had access to legal pussy via prostitution.

[–]incraved 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Very interesting read. The one about Muslims was quite interesting.

[–]Costafarian 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Aaaaaaaaaand, bookmarked!

[–]VivalaVeritas 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Liked it, but the first truth is kind of down to preference. I agree that most(all) men go for big breasts, tight hips, and a round ass, but the blonde hair blue eyes thing is really down to preference. I've never been overly attracted to that look, preferring green eyes and dark hair instead (hngggghhhh), but I can see the appeal blonde hair and blue eyes holds for other men.

[–]rokr1292 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Number 4 is FASCINATING. I've never thought about that aspect before.

I'm new to this sub but it lives up to the name. I feel like I'm in the matrix

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]luxury_banana 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

We get it, you're a humanities major and you don't like it because your worldview based in identity politics is threatened by it. You still aren't making a cogent argument against it.

Evolutionary psychology is perhaps the only branch of psychology which at least has any real basis in actual sciences, and isn't just a series of just-so stories which are parroted with a zealous appeal to authority.

To quote someone:

Much work in evolutionary psychology offers explanations of phenomena that best explain those phenomena; that is, given all rival, competing hypotheses (both non-evolutionary and other evolutionary ones), such evolutionary explanations account for the focal phenomena better than the others. Such comparative explanatory assessments are at root more or less what science is all about.

If you can offer up better explanations, we're all ears. I submit that you cannot and that your view of human psychology is again a series of just-so stories with no supporting evidence. Unlike evolutionary psychology, which is backed by a lot of actual legitimate scientific research in various fields which are used to reach most of its conclusions.

[–]blonderengel -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, you not even close with your opening guesses/explanatory assessments.

So, no, you don't get it.

Much work in evolutionary psychology offers explanations of phenomena that best explain those phenomena

Is that some sort of performance artist?

Explanations explain? Really??

Such comparative explanatory assessments are at root more or less what science is all about

LOL!

Wut?

...your view of human psychology is again a series of just-so stories with no supporting evidence...

You mean stories, like, you know, comparative explanatory explanations?

Let's just take this assertion: Most suicide bombers are Muslim.

Read up on the Hindu ‘Tamil Tiger’ Liberation movement in Sri Lanka. And then, look at the numbers, rather than at reproductive habits: in Dying to Win, author Robert Pape shows that Muslims are responsible for less than half of all suicide attacks. Furthermore, 30% of Muslim suicide attacks are motivated by secular interests.

Pape concludes that it is not religion, but nationalism which spurs this last resort effort to liberate one’s country: “... every suicide terrorist campaign since 1980 has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw combat forces from territory that the terrorists’ prize … Absent (foreign occupation), we rarely see suicide terrorism.”

Terrorism, in other words, in the weapon of the militarily weak side, the one who can't send the 5th fleet to lob a few missiles into someone's yard.

However, it's laughable to suggest this: The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam. The prospect of exclusive access to virgins may not be so appealing to anyone who has even one mate on earth, which strict monogamy virtually guarantees. However, the prospect is quite appealing to anyone who faces the bleak reality on earth of being a complete reproductive loser.

Suicide is not referred to in the Quran but is forbidden in the Traditions.

There is no promise of 72 virgins for martyrs, terrorists, and / or suicide bombers in the Quran.

What about female suicide bombers? Do they get sexy-time with the ladies in heaven, too?

Data shows that suicide attackers come not from the criminal, illiterate, or poor (loser class), but from largely secular and educated middle classes. Think Bin Laden; he got some, here on earth...

[–]luxury_banana 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Nice. You got off to a quality start by strawmanning an out-of-context, incomplete sentence you didn't quote the entirety of as a tautology. You're a real pro at this.

The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam. The prospect of exclusive access to virgins may not be so appealing to anyone who has even one mate on earth, which strict monogamy virtually guarantees. However, the prospect is quite appealing to anyone who faces the bleak reality on earth of being a complete reproductive loser.

This guy agrees with evopsych, retard. It's something I even posted about hours ago

See also: Why the Death Penalty and the DNA Technology Do Not Deter Murderers and Rapists

You make my argument for me.

[–]blonderengel -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Reductive arguments--in this case, boiling down the complex matter of suicide attacks to lack of sex and/or reproductive chances--must be very appealing to simple minds.

However, you are not the first person to enshrine his/her personal biases and prejudices and beliefs in some unstable, untested "philosophy."

Taking the idea of evolutionary competition and applying it to random bits of cultural preferences disguised as "facts" isn't science; it certainly isn't research because research is hard and takes time and rarely offers one opportunities to be "daring" and "controversial" and "anti PC."

Talking shit/smack sells books (follow the money!), so I do admire the marketing flair here; clearly, he has figured out how to sell his shit to rubes who can't be arsed to follow old-fashioned research, i.e. stuff that proceeds like this:

  1. Make observation
  2. Formulate hypothesis to explain observation
  3. Design experiment to test hypothesis etc etc

Ain't nobody got time for that!

(I do hope DHS pays close attention to Utah, though; clearly those Mormon communities are hot beds of planned suicide bombers)

Again: complex human behavior can't be reduced to any or two causes, especially when those causes are demonstrated to be absent.


The blond hair / blue eyes / big boobs stuff is too funny!

It is no coincidence that blond hair evolved in Scandinavia and northern Europe, probably as an alternative means for women to advertise their youth, as their bodies were concealed under heavy clothing.

Yup. It's freezing cold in Sweden, year-round. In Germany, too! I walked to school, thru waist-deep snow, uphill, both ways. There simply are no summers when girls could shed their heavy clothing.

If we select mating partners based on characteristics that signal health, we would certainly not pick blue eyed partners: blue-eyed people are statistically more likely to develop age-related macular degeneration.

men who prefer to mate with blond women are unconsciously attempting to mate with younger (and hence, on average, healthier and more fecund) women.

If men are biologically programed to look for the physical indicators of fertility (and that is questionable), they would actually eschew blonde hair.

Caucasian women who are born blonde, usually find that their hair darkens at puberty due to the presence of estrogen which is responsible for the development of other secondary sexual characteristics that provide visual cues that a human female is now impregnable: the development of breasts, body hair, and broadening hips. Estrogen is also responsible for ovulation.

So, IF heterosexual men are driven by visual cues to indicate fertility, then DARKENING hair would be the attractor.

Besides, if there really were some kind of universal male attraction to youthful blondness, it fails to explain the fecundity of the non-Caucasian persons of this planet.

Truth is, blonde hair has been marketed as “beautiful” because it is the most expensive (and profitable, i.e. "follow the money") hair color to maintain.

Anyhow, like I said ... now that Kanazawa's been fired from PT, I am sure we will see more of him in Daily Mail. It'll be a match made in heaven. He's also useful in my stats classes as an example of how not to conduct research.

We are also testing ... ahem ... explaining, with explanatory explanations, why he, as a Japanese male, thinks that mating/sex is driving every human behavior. It's because the Japanese are not having any sex..

TaDAA! Science! I can has big research grants now...

Gratuitous illustration

[–]luxury_banana 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Boiling them down to suicide attacks alone is of course yet another strawman, as polygynous societies like much of the Islamic middle-east have problems that run much deeper than that as a result of that issue. We knew you were disingenuous, though. Note also that the North American polygynous Mormons have their own problem which arises from polygyny.

Blonde hair does darken with age, but it darkens slower from age in women than in men so it doesn't follow necessarily that darkening of the hair would be the attactor as you're trying to suggest. Quite the opposite, likely, as severely darkened natural blonde hair would likely signify an older and likely not fertile woman.

Blonde women also tend to have light skin which shows defects such as disease easier. So it not only becomes easier to screen for age (important as women's fertility greatly declines with age) but also disease that could lead to things like infertility. So lighter blonde hair coupled with developed secondary sex characteristics (breasts, widened hips) and lack of visible disease are largely fertility cues that are more easily visible than in other women, explaining the preference.

Nuanced arguments aren't a thing you seem to do, though. Simply because there is a preference for blonde women due to these factors doesn't mean that non-blondes and those with darker skin are magically infertile.

We are also testing ... ahem ... explaining, with explanatory explanations, why he, as a Japanese male, thinks that mating/sex is driving every human behavior. It's because the Japanese are not having any sex.

Fertility rates in first world countries in general are dropping as it seems largely due to the rising cost of living and lack of financial opportunity. In Japan in particular the work-yourself-to-death model laid out for men in an age which doesn't have the job security that today's men's fathers enjoyed is untenable, for example.

By the way some of those Japanese guys crack and do things like go on killing sprees (this guy's motivations were attributed to messages he allegedly posted such as "If only I had a girlfriend, I wouldn't have quit work," "I would never have become addicted to my mobile phone. Anybody with hope couldn't possibly understand how I feel,") As a note, suicide in general seems to have gone way up in many societies in which men are sexually disenfranchised including our own.

You make bad milquetoast non-arguments, presenting no real counterargument simply because you don't like what evolutionary psychology says, but you offer no competing models and actually seem to be a blank slate true believer.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter