Quote: (06-23-2018 05:44 AM)JayGould Wrote:
Quote: (06-22-2018 04:45 PM)Eugenics Wrote:
Like I said they are co-dependant. It's obvious when you look at things like The Halo Effect. People of better genetic quality will be richer on average than those with less looks, intelligence, and cunning. But I'm basing my observation on the fact that many middle class and below women (sometimes even higher status women) will hook up and have children with felons, dregs, and other undesirables, despite the societal pressure not to. Almost as if they are being directed by by their base instincts exclusively. That success is based on genetic quality and the "bad boy" factor (agression related to testosterone is genetic and high t men are rates more attractive on average). They are sexually successful despite absence of any provider qualities whatsoever.
There's a lot of Tinder experiments that aren't so scientific but essentially prove this. I'll see if I can find them. But basically someone takes pictures of male models, admits to horrible acts that society condemns like armed robbery, pedophilia, murder, (openly on the tinder profile) and women still throw themselves at him. Not just ugly low status women either, but decent looking middle class girls. With such verocity it's almost depressing. Let me find some examples.
I doubt being a bad boy has to do with genetics (well it does, but not in the way you mean). Testosterone too. High T doesn't necessarily make you a bad boy. Plenty of church boys in the football or rugby team.
So what you are saying with "genetics" is basically physical features (looks, height etc). The reason handsome guys are doing exponentially better than everyone else on Tinder is because women only have pictures to judge from. They have to figure out a man's status from these alone. A tall, handsome guy with a six pick is their safest best.
But Tinder is not the full reality.
^ Btw I think the girls on Tinder above believe the guy to be joking. Nobody would unironically declare himself a pedophile on an internet dating app.
Feel free to clarify, the first bold sentence contradicts itself in an effort to make me look incorrect without any backing at all.
No they're doing well because they look good, period. There's something to be said about how people (but especially women) fill the lack of details with their own details that have absolutely no basis in reality. But the same thing would happen in real life and does.
I don't. You're lack of red-pill awareness is showing. You're providing reasonable doubt to people that have done nothing to deserve it, nor indicated they thought it was a joke. Maybe a few are stupid enough to think he's joking, just to give a little breathing room to your argument but it's clearly serious. However they rationalize things is their business, I'm sure their hamsters are on overdrive when they see a 10/10 genetic specimen. I don't get why that's relevant or why you're sympathizing and I'd venture to say it doesn't do anything for this conversation.
Quote: (06-23-2018 08:04 AM)jcardial Wrote:
Tinder "experiments"
You made a huge fatally flawed leap from "aren't so scientific" to "essentially prove " xyz. The age of consent in the U.K. is 16, so breaking the rule by a few days is hardly some huge crime in most people's minds. For all they know he was 16 or 17 at the time. Change that age to 12 and remove the facetious tone ("beef curtain cunts," is real serious) and see how many eager matches he has. Even then, with hundreds or thousands of matches you can still cherry pick some girls who just looked at his pics or misinterpreted his description. It doesn't prove anything but it makes for some nice click bait entertainment.
Motivations for sex
This is a massive over simplification of human psychology. Motivations for sex aren't so one dimensional even if they originated out of a drive for reproduction. Sexual behavior has evolved as a social behavior to maintain and reinforce bonds between people. Strong affectionate relationships are more optimal to raise children to adulthood.
Humans modern and prehistoric clearly had sex for reasons other than just reproduction. Some people do it purely for validation, or for money/resources, or even conflict resolution within a relationship. A similar phenomenon is seen in our not so distant relatives, the Bonobos (who resolve the majority of conflicts with sex).
I admit that is one hell of a logical leap. My wording was too strong, if we're going to go by scientific philosophy here nothing is proven. And admittedly that example doesn't even illustrate half the picture. These experiments are simply a tool to let you observe how human mating behavior exist in a vacuum. You can draw your own conclusions, and do your own tests and I really encourage you to do so. I have and it can be fun but it can also be a little depressing if you're not a 10/10 example of male genetics, but that's what game is for.
You also seem hamsterizing for these women and not holding them accountable for it. Why? It's just not relevant how they rationalize their behavior. The statement I'm making here is that good genetics trump almost everything. It sounds defeatist and it sucks to hear but that's how it is. Does that mean if you're a 5/10 dude you won't get laid by beautiful women? No. Does it mean you can't marry a beautiful woman? No. Learn game, improve your life, keep it moving. Denying basic observations on human mating, then defending women for making horrible decisions in those observations does nothing for you, in fact it's probably hurting your game.
Let me clarify on the bolded part. I'm speaking on the first layer, the first pass of human attraction and mating behaviour. The "lizard brain" or whatever people want to call it. Base instincts that effect all other rationalizations, goals, and motives, on every subconscious, conscious, and logical pass after. And when we're talking about the less logical sex, the most emotional sex, the sex that time and time again proves they lack long term thinking capacity when their mind is pre-occupied with such emotion compared to their male counterparts - the weight and effect of these factors is undeniable.
I'm not saying genetics and looks are everything. I'm just saying it has an incredibly undeniable weight when it comes to sexual selection. I thought this was self-evident. The claim I'm making is that genetics/looks when it comes to sexual selection trumps provider traits. Obviously sexual selection is complicated and there are a lot of variables involved. That should be motivation to learn game not to despair because these basic observations hurt peoples feelings.