~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
MARSpu
[–]Mysteri0n 28 points29 points30 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
I... have never wanted to see monkeys beat each other up more in my life. For science, of course.
[–]harvey-birdman7 points 14 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
Don't think it applies to monkeys but chimps and apes are pretty brutal fighters. Especially against humans. First thing they mess up is a guy's junk and face to take him out of the gene pool. Shit's messed up.
[–]Helmet_Icicle 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's intellectually invigorating to know that they target those areas for the same reasons we would. And that we and they KNOW to.
[–]MartMillz 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Why do you credit this action as with the intention of taking him out of the gene pool and not simply as good combat tactic since they know that the genitals would be a particularly vulnerable area?
Not criticizing, serious question, I am legitimately curious.
[–]harvey-birdman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It's both, although the taking out of gene pool aspect wouldn't be their primary concern. They attack the eyes, ears, nose, fingers, hands, feet and genitals because it causes severe pain and makes you unable to fight. But it has the side advantage (to the chimps) that even if you do survive your chances of finding a mate are lowered. But their attack pattern has been to maim and disable first, and then kill second. That's just something I always found a bit unnerving since if humans want to really kill, they'll try to kill asap rather than mutilate first.
[–]MartMillz 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I guess, but if humans want to kill they do it with a gun or knife; humans generally don't beat each other to death with their fists (anymore). If a chimp finds another male that is a threat to its local dominance then its only option would be to pound the other guy into submission. I presume that if a chimp is able to severely maim another then nothing would really prevent it from "finishing the job," so to speak. I'm curious as to whether leaving the opponent disfigured is done out of some primordial sense of mercy or maybe they just think it's hilarious...
[–]dmanww 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
it looks something like this
[–]konical 27 points28 points29 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Not sure if this should be in seduction, but i've never seen this in my internet life of 20 years, so it gets my upvote anyway
[–]cal679 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I was confused as to why it was in seduction as well, although maybe that just says I'm not very good at seduction, not beating up enough monkeys.
I've seen this before but it's a favourite of mine, so in this case I am in favour of the re-post.
[–]Helmet_Icicle 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I thought the same thing at first, and then I realized that even if it doesn't directly provide content, it sparks discussion exactly like this.
Shits meta, man.
[–]nycprowl 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
A big part of The Blueprint Decoded: Real Social Dynamics involves this concept. One theory as to why things like AA exists is because back in early human tribal times, if you were lower on the social ladder and challenged an alpha by trying to get his women or something else, you could be ostracized or killed. Those traits remain with us, however the likelyhood you're going to be killed for talking to women is pretty minuscule.
[–]3109 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
It's relevant because it talks about the same concept of limiting beliefs being "in your head." - The monkeys not knowing why they shouldn't touch the bananas is the same idea of men not approaching because they think they look "ugly" or "they're too short". Go and approach to see what happens as opposed to not approach because you THINK you will fail.
[–][deleted] 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]badave 18 points19 points20 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"and that is why you always leave a note."
[–]JihadDerp 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Government policy
[–]jlstitt 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
My company would have had all five monkeys contribute to a policy document about 2000 pages big and any new monkey would have had to review this document and keep a record of the knowledge transition and of each page and the other monkeys would have to sign off saying that the KT was correctly done and periodically there would be a monkey document review panel and during the meetings each monkey would act all self-important and stress just how important his section of the monkey manual was, whilst also stroking the egos of the other monkey policy makers and how their team contributed valuable monkey policies.
[–][deleted] 43 points44 points45 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Reminds me of a story I heard about mother using two small pots to boil water. Her child asked why she uses two small pots to boil water instead of one large pot. The mother said it's because her mother did the same thing, and that's because her mother did it too, and her mother as well. So they asked the great grandmother why she used two small pots and the answer was "because we were really poor and couldn't afford pots, so we got two small ones instead of one big one".
So yeah, people adopt victim mentality, and nice guy syndromes all the time. Limiting beliefs are easily caught like viruses. First hand knowledge > anything else.
[–]TheEllimist 61 points62 points63 points 14 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link
The water would boil quicker in two small pots vs one big one.
Edit: typo from my phone
[–]academician 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
True, but that's a bit beside the point - they were still engaging in cargo cult behavior, and the origin of the behavior had nothing to do with speed of boiling.
[–]TheEllimist 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
That's true, I just wanted to point it out as someone who frequently tries to cook as efficiently as possible.
[–]scurvebeard 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Still using double the power, but it's time-efficient, sure.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Luckily energy bills are measured off of work.
[–]scurvebeard 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
4 months ago, but I think there'd probably be some kind of electrical overhead just running two burners at full instead of one. Then again, there's probably some kind of overhead on escaping heat that a larger pot would have to contend with...
Long story short, we need some Euclidean solids and a couple mathematicians up in this bitch.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I agree! It's an interesting problem, I'd consider trying it at home. Really, wouldn't all we need is two small pots, a large pot, and a stop watch?
[–]ertylu 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Correct, because the ratio of heating to water volume is effectively doubled with 2 smaller pots on 2 different burners!
[–]Melburnian 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Not really surprising when you consider you are using twice as much gas/electricity!
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Probably more than double, right? Cause it's one burner for x minutes vs. 2 burners for more than x/2 minutes.
[–]kruunch 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Out with you and your logical reasoning!
[–]dropkickoz 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
BLASPHEMER!!
[–]anon10500 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
and the worst thing is when you try to explain a behavior as a limiting belief, they get offended ...Runs away...
[–][deleted] 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]danxmason 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Irony at its best.
[–]JoeBourgeois 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Thank you -- came here to say this. Good story, but very very hard to pin down.
[–]MARSpu[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I was more than sure of this when I first posted the image up. Nowhere is there even a remote citation. That doesn't mean that the point doesn't stand though, because it does.
[–][deleted] 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]MARSpu[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Research has been done, though not in the exact monkey scenario, of course.
[–][deleted] 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]MARSpu[S] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Citation? Very basic psychological principles, my friend. Classical conditioning.
[–]AegisSC 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Someone went through a lot of trouble to hoax it up then...
[–][deleted] 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]AegisSC -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
In all honesty, I didn't read it. But I did skim over it and it seems you are correct, sir.
[–]kyurah16 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Haha I thought I was reading that in /r/ psychology and was wondering why it was using the monkey pictures. In a nutshell this is about the formation and persistence of arbitrary norms, and is hilariously real. If you're interested, look into the study by Sherif and MacNeil.
http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Sherif/Sherif_1976a.html
[–]WhereAreMyMinds 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
source of the study?
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Tradition.
Why do you not wear a turtle shell as a hat?
[–]Helmet_Icicle 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's illegal, ethically unsettling, and doesn't look good.
[–]bski1776 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I agree with the sentiment but in the above situation, wouldn't doing things how they've always been done actually be helpful (no cold showers for any monkeys) even if they didn't know why?
[–]ramonycajones 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's actually a really good point - if anything this study as an allegory could be used to support the carrying on of tradition/norms. It would've been more striking if they noted that the scientists had turned off the water at some point.
[–]DesignMyself 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Many monkeys wouldn't just say, "That's how it's done." They would have made up some reason to justify their behavior and why it's important.
Seems plausible, but source please?
Also, why is it in r/seduction?
[–]IV-65536 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I don't get why the monkeys beat each other up in the first place.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
They don’t like being sprayed with cold water, so they’re trying to discourage the source of it (whichever monkey is trying to climb the ladder).
[–]IV-655362 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Wow I'm dumb. I didn't notice it said "sprays the other monkeys". I thought that the scientists sprayed the monkey that climbed the ladder with cold water.
Poor monkeys.
[–]MARSpu[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Holy shit, I was wondering why I had 600 beside my name.
[–]Drakoneeum 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Not a bad thing. it would appear they can learn through others. Life would be pretty stagnate if we always had to do everything ourselves and not believe in some of the things that have been proven before.
The flaw in this story is that the scientist turned off the water, it does not indicate the animals are somehow stupid. It just means the rules have changed.
I guess we should "touch a hot stove" routinely to see if it still burns, the rules may have changed....
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Its in no way calling monkeys stupid, just recognizing a phenomenon of mammals social structure. This phenomenon probably kept moneys alive through millions of years and have been saved by the DNA. Take this knowledge and use it in order to have a perspective on your's and societies "normal" behaviors. Better yet, drop some acid and contemplate on the how a human separate from society would act, find the primal instinct in yourself because seduction and sex is the most primal thing of all.
and have been saved by the DNA
Not neccessary. The ability of humans (and it seems, monkeys) to have culture plays a large role in their evolution. I doubt they'd need to save this particular response in their DNA, they just need enough other monkeys around that've learned from their elders the consequence of climbing the ladder.
I'm defining elders as people in that society that were there before them.
Also, I hope I didn't misinterpret what you were saying about DNA. If I did, my bad
Yeah, essential I was trying to say what you said in a more lazy manner and misrepresented my point. High five
[–]whatwhywhy 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
fucking scientists... leave those monkeys alone
edit: I didnt notice this post is actually belong to seddit...
[–]bob_digit -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Scumbag scientists
[–]wherestheoption 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Magnets.
[–]hosmos -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Religion?
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Mind was blown all over the wall, thanks OP
[–]balr -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Why is this posted in r/seduction and not in r/atheism?
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The title: "Limiting Beliefs". Lots of people adopt ideas (like being the "nice guy" and not just putting themselves out there) because they think they're "safe", even even though they're really "safe" at all. Not trying to sleep with multiple women (or one girl, or get a girlfriend, or whatever the hell you're trying to do) is seen as "safe", likely because thousands/millions of years ago when we were still on the African plain, it WAS safe not to fuck with the alpha males harem. That idea could have been passed down to us through cultural evolution today, which is the entire point of the comic (and, I assume, the research paper). It shows the ability of culture to affect peoples behavior...even when the behavior that it's causing is utterly pointless now
EDIT: Assuming there is actual research to back this up and it's not some random shit thing some guy made up. Still like the idea though
[–]balr 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Nope, I think you're missing the point too.
[–]tortangtalong69 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
mind = blown
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]Mysteri0n 28 points29 points30 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]harvey-birdman7 points [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Helmet_Icicle 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MartMillz 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]harvey-birdman 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]MartMillz 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]dmanww 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]konical 27 points28 points29 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]cal679 12 points13 points14 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Helmet_Icicle 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nycprowl 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]3109 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]badave 18 points19 points20 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]JihadDerp 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jlstitt 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 43 points44 points45 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheEllimist 61 points62 points63 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]academician 12 points13 points14 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheEllimist 3 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]scurvebeard 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]scurvebeard 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ertylu 9 points10 points11 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Melburnian 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kruunch 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]dropkickoz 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]anon10500 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]danxmason 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]JoeBourgeois 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MARSpu[S] 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]MARSpu[S] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]MARSpu[S] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AegisSC 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]AegisSC -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kyurah16 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]WhereAreMyMinds 3 points4 points5 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Helmet_Icicle 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bski1776 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ramonycajones 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DesignMyself 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]IV-65536 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]IV-655362 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MARSpu[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Drakoneeum 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]whatwhywhy 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]bob_digit -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]wherestheoption 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hosmos -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]balr -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]balr 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tortangtalong69 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link