Sexual Dimorphism and Behavioral Evolution by Professor Robert Sapolsky

http://youtu.be/Y0Oa4Lp5fLE?t=1h18m53s

Stanford professor Robert Sapolsky lectures on the biology of behavioral evolution and in this talk goes on about the difference between two different species who have two different types of adaptation and sexual behavior. He is basicly stating many of the tenants of The Red Pill here. Think of these two species as Alpha on the left, and Betas on the right. He goes on to conclude that it is indeed complicated with humans, but nevertheless ask yourself: On which side would i like to be here?

The whole course can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD7E21BF91F3F9683 Part 15, 16 and 17 deal specifically with Human Sexual Behavior, but i have not had a look into those yet.

Edit: Will continue to watch this course and will update from time to time with interesting snippets that proove or disprove Red Pill Theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKNAzl-XN4I&t=42m Here he talks about imprinted genes, those that express themselves differently depending on which sex they came from. Since you only see those in tournamental species and humans have several of them, it points to the fact that humans are indeed, adversarial in the sexual behavior.

He cautions time and time again that humans in general, are somehow unique in the animal kingdom as to the fact that there are several things like personality and social and cultural traits that make us different to animals still. I agree to some degreee, though i would caution as to the problem of overemphasizing this supposed uniqueness of humans as well. After all, we are just a part of nature after all.

[–][deleted] 4 points4 points4 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]TfahsNoriEht5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points5 points5 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]ProudHoney 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]ProudHoney 2 points2 points2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Where do you see a decline in female sexual power in modern society?

There are very few decent women left in the West, even less are worthy of a marriage, without even considering the current legal climate. No citizen of Redville could even consider marriage after spending enough time here, but it should be worth noting that our current environment is a relatively new experience considering the decline of tradition. Women's overall [sexual] value has declined because they have been fed feminist ice cream, many gallons, by obese liberal dykes for the last 60 years. I imagine spinning plates would be much harder back when women held each other to much higher standards, but are still suffering attrition on that front with the resent epidemic of “slut shame” hysteria.

Sure, they're more sexually carefree, irresponsible and devoid of shame in their sexual-prime, let them have their freedom but it won't be without the consequences. They have completely devalued their species (in the west) and continually undermine other counterparts of their sex.

It may not be a man's world, in the sense that we're going to have mutually happy marriages well into our senior years, like our parents enjoyed. However, it is still a “patriarchy,” when considering short term relations, the buffet of easy insecure women struggling in our postmodern world are in infinite supply.

Also please correct me if i am wrong, but do you argue for the existance of god here with your

I argue his existence, only in what was left behind in his absence, in the frameworks used to construct secular post-Christian ideologies – e.g., Marxism, Feminism, etc. – based in ideals leftover from his cultural death.

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”

 —Nietzsche, The Gay Science

I was referring to the fact that not all feminists are atheistic-agnostic types, this cult has been far reaching into Christianity too and will be for other religions given enough time. Though not religious myself, I don't deny the utility in religion and its cultural benefits – e.g, cohesiveness, encouraging family, responsible reproduction, and basic morality – I have seen the void myself and there is no hope in me ever relapsing into a “Blue Pill” mentality.

How do you cope with the cognitive dissonance of believing in a god, while on the other hand trying to understand evolutionary psychology?

On an unrelated note, I have seen more atheists ignoring basic evolutionary concepts than Christians but spend enough time arguing against new-atheists and you will have a hard time telling them apart. A lot of people are pushed out of high education with the idea that we are all blank slates, completely adaptive to whatever culture we are placed into, and nothing in our biology changes (or plays a huge part) in our development. This kind of creationist-tier thinking is much worse than believing in a 6,000 year old earth, but I won't pretend either are preferred, I only recognize cultural constructionists as more destructive as they are in power, academically especially, and this way of thinking has become the norm.

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

This is something I've believed before coming here. People in work HATE me saying were animals.

It was actually a book called the chimp paradox which let me to really understand this. That book is written by a famous sports psychologist and many of the top athletes in Europe have come under his guidance, with good results.

The book was specifically aimed at temperamental sports people but also at people with anxiety. He laid out just how little control we have over the unevolved part of our brain, which includes the fight or flight response- which causes anxiety or temper actions. He called this part of the brain the chimp- I understand it as common for all animals.

There were some good tips in the book, he even made it clear male and female animal drives are very different, but it was filled with a lot of obvious stuff and feel good stuff. Still would recommend!

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

[–]roamingjerk1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes. No. Actually this is the basic dilemma of all human civilization.

In a barbarian tribe, the big and strong is king. In a civilized society you can achieve high status by making or inheriting money by being smart while you can be perfectly unmasculine.

So in civilization the womens apparatus for picking up "high value man" signals get completely confused. The effeminate, weak, cowardly rich aristocrat sends her some high value signals: "I am high status!" The big, strong, brave, aggressive poor, lopwly bum (unskilled laborer) sends her some value signals: "I an our ancestral environment I would beat the shit out of the aristocrat and take his wealth and status!"

She just gets confused, but the men too - they are never really sure about their relative rank. It's always a bit confusing - the aristocrat ranks higher but still uncomfortable and afraid of the poor strong guy.

The conflict between these two halves of high value masculinity drives history. When the manly bum thinks he does not like to take orders from a pussy, you have a revolution. When the rich pussy thinks it is time to gain some ancestral man points through aggression, there is war. When the rich pussy thinks wealth status is just fine, you get a consumer society.

[–]Blalubb0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

Title	Sexual Dimorphism and Behavioral Evolution by Professor Robert Sapolsky
Author	The_BitterTruth
Upvotes	15
Comments	12
Date	January 21, 2014 5:24 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1vqnsu/sexual_dimorphism_and_behavioral_evolution_by/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/sexual-dimorphism-and-behavioral-evolution-by.10237 https://theredarchive.com/post/10237

Comments