Wednesday, September 28, 2016

I'm going to say no

I don't think the author of this piece quite grasps what "the selfish gene" actually is:
If it’s been said once, it’s been said a thousand times, nice guys finish last. But why is it that women choose dominance every time over niceness, dooming notions of sexual equality to dismal failure?

The Selfish Gene” theory could explain the tendency of women not only to marry up, but to completely disregard the bottom 4/5 of men as potential suitors as The Pareto Principle suggests and eyewitness evidence in any club in America will illustrate. Here’s a simple definition of The Selfish Gene:

A lineage is expected to evolve to maximize its inclusive fitness—the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual).

This theory is bad news for men in a sexual market that has shifted to look more like a jungle than a civilization since the advent of “women’s liberation” a.k.a. feminism. The Realtalk translation of that very effete sounding definition of The Selfish Gene works out to: Women want to fuck the winners, and they will fuck over the losers.

Women have evolved to disregard and even harbor contempt for “inferior” DNA. In a cruel world in which survival of the fittest has been the rule from day one over 4 billion years ago when life began to form in the slime, being a nice boy doesn’t cut it. Women, more than men, are beholden to the influences of The Selfish Gene, and though we may lament its effects on our sexual and familial prospects as men there are sound biological reasons women have evolved to be ruthless when it comes to choosing sexual partners.
As much as it pains me to say this, a little reading of Richard Dawkins is in order here. Selfish gene theory will not explain hypergamy because there is no known hypergamous gene or even combination of genes that lead women to behave in this manner.

Indeed, the "quality" theory underlying hypergamy tends to conflict with the idea of the selfish gene.


Zedd Prime said...

"No known hypergamous gene or combination of genes." I read the article as suggesting that they exist, without pointing at any. For the inconsistencies in linking hypergamy to selfish gene theory, I would expect that to be explained by the r/K modifier.

Revelation Means Hope said...

Reinforces what you said earlier that people should read the source material before displaying their ignorance to everyone on the internet, forever.

I would wager that for most mid-wits with IQs ranging from 110 to 130, this strategy of seeming to know what you are talking about without having depth of knowledge has resulted in them getting plenty of atta boys and head pats, until it has become a life strategy.

Ties back into your statement on the other blog about how curiosity + intelligence will beat intelligence and surface learning.

Anonymous said...

The problem with this is that young women only want to fuck the top 10% of guys, and without social restraints, they can and will. Feel free to call the other men losers, because they are, but don't expect them to work, pay taxes, or defend the country. Why should they? Jim explains:

evilwhitemalempire said...

"Selfish gene theory will not explain hypergamy because there is no known hypergamous gene or even combination of genes that lead women to behave in this manner."
Jeeez. the depths some of you will go to not understand evolution.

Unknown said...

Không chỉ thế vẫn còn có trang khác đó là tai game mien phi chuyên tổng hợpnhững game cực hot

Vào đây tai game mien phi phù hợp với tất cả dòng máy

Harambe said...

It's more a case of "I've just read this book, so now I'm gonna try to apply it to everything". Which is a natural thing to do when you've not read a whole lot of books. We all need to start somewhere, after all.

Daniel said...

No. It isn't. It is more like "I've heard of Darwin's Descent of Man so that probably explains why men end up lowering themselves to be ensnared by hypergamous women, because their genes tend to descend their behavior..."

It is far less than a primitive or mistaken understanding. It isn't understanding at all.

Erynne said...

So many sloppy applications of book knowledge. Not all readers are the same, and people have differing views of what constitutes comprehension. It's valuable to have someone as intelligent as VD commentate and correct the midwits on RoK.

dc.sunsets said...

By the author's view, women are choosing "the winners" when screwing black college athletes who have IQ's in the 80's, are covered in tats and who hang out with their thug buddies? This is "ruthless[ly]" picking winners? Sheesh.

Crowhill said...

It also seems -- based on some of the material in Matt Ridley's The Red Queen -- that the passage you quote is being a little too simplistic about hypergamy. Females sometimes sneak off and get it on the side with the nice guy. (According to Ridley.)

IMO, while behavior may indicate certain tendencies, there are usually exceptions and complications.

Anonymous said...

Crowhill said...
Females sometimes sneak off and get it on the side with the nice guy.



women sneak off and get it on the side with the Bad Boy.

Crowhill said...

Read Ridley.

Trimegistus said...

It's called the "sexy sons hypothesis." A woman's genes want her to have male offspring who will get lots of opportunities to sire offspring of their own.

Artisanal Toad said...

I'm not surprised that someone like Roosh would struggle with this, but what amazes me is the number of Christians who willingly accept hypergamy as an evolutionary development.

Christians should know better because hypergamy is explained by Genesis 3:16. The woman was given a desire (both a desire to control and a sexual desire) for the man who is her ruler (he shall rule over you). From a Game perspective the woman has a desire for the man who is fit to rule. First come the fitness tests (is he fit to rule) and when he passes those tests, then comes the sexual desire. As anyone who has ever gamed women knows.

When that simple truth is understood one can examine what it means to be fit to rule, which is a much more nuanced term when trying to explain male attractiveness than the blunt terms of alpha, beta, delta, gamma, omega and sigma. Indeed, from the fitness to rule perspective the difference between the alpha and sigma center on the differences between the ENTJ and the INTJ personalities.

However, even otherwise "Red Pill" Christians can't handle what Genesis says about men and women; such study produces the Josiah effect and they realize they've sinned. So, like any Blue Pill person exposed to Red Pill truth, they deny what the Bible says, defend general evolutionary theory and attack the messenger. More ordinary Christians will accept the evolutionary viewpoint of Game in order to attack it, yet they reserve their fiercest attacks for anyone who points to what Genesis 3:16 says and means, because that's the origin of hypergamy. Put Genesis 3:16 on the table and their world starts to fall apart. Put Genesis 2:24 on the table with the question of when marriage begins and they collectively go insane as their worldview collapses.

"he shall rule over you" clearly indicates that if the man is not fit to rule the woman will not have desire for him. Which is proven by both Game and all the miserable wives in the church. But to bring this up to Christians... that the men should improve themselves in order to truly love their wives because of the way God hardwired women, that results in a spectacular explosion of fear, envy and insecurity.

So, like different groups of drunks staggering along in the dark they all misapprehend their surroundings. One group because they have no light to guide their path, the other group refusing to use their light on that particular path for fear of what they will find.

Jed Mask said...

... Indeed. Artisanal Toad tells the truth like it is.

Hopefully people will TAKE HEED. Amen.

Unknown said...

Selfish = To think only of your needs and ignore all others
Hypergamy = Seek and Mate only with the highest quality male

BOTH are a "selfish" desire and BOTH seek only to advantage the individual without any concern for consequences and damage to the tribe, city, or nation and culture. That is your "selfish gene" in females... They will fuck any man they think is high value weather he is or not based on her prehistoric mate selection process.

She will breed with your enemy if she feels he is better, she will abandon her tribe if she feels his it better, she will discard her culture if she feels his is better and has no concern for whoever she is with currently.

If you think some low IQ DINDU savage from the third world is "fit to lead" you are a fucking moron because they would be "leading" the world in science, medicine, tech, and warfare if they had the actual ability to do so.

The only thing a female seeks for breeding is savagery, and nothing else or she would go out her way to fuck the high IQ nerds to get kids with brains, but we all know those men are seen as "weak" and "creepy" to females while Charles Manson and El Chapo are seen as dreamboats.

YJLAW said...

That's not all those selfish genes are doing.

Gulo Gulo said...

"I'm not surprised that someone like Roosh would struggle with this"

Roosh didn't write it. Get get your facts straight

Jed Mask said...

Hmmm... Good stuff. You "Deaths Head", say, you are very right on the defintions of "selfish" and "hypergamy". I definitely agree with the core context of what you've shared.

I think I'll share a little "clarity" on this passage though. Just some extra thoughts.

"If you think some low IQ DINDU savage from the third world is "fit to lead" you are a [expletive] moron because they would be "leading" the world in science, medicine, tech, and warfare if they had the actual ability to do so.

The only thing a female seeks for breeding is savagery, and nothing else or she would go out her way to [sex] the high IQ nerds to get kids with brains, but we all know those men are seen as "weak" and "creepy" to females while Charles Manson and El Chapo are seen as dreamboats."

A woman hypergamously seeks the "most fit" DOMINANT male in terms of SOCIAL and SEXUAL DOMINANCE as has been elaborated on here. Hence "Alpha" and "Sigma".

You're mistaking "savagery" as the thing" for which women are ATTRACTED to which is DOMINANCE in the men she instinctively critiques for "best value".

Now "dominance" in men on the socio-sexual reality is seen in terms of social dominance and sexual dominance. Alpha males and Sigma males naturally have such traits; thus women are attracted to them. Take away these natural dominance traits and women are not attracted to them on the instinctual hindbrain level. Quite simple.

So, in terms of "savagery" if you want to go that length, women are NOT attracted to "savagery" in of itself lol. They are ATTRACTED to the PHYSICAL POWER of PHYSICAL DOMINANCE used as FORCE that she knows can be used to PROTECT HER and HER OFFSPRING with such a man. That's the key on that.

Women are attracted to POWER, STRENGTH and any other favourable trait in the men she "critiques" in mate selection that are naturally BENEFICIAL to HER SURVIVAL and to HER KIDS survival that she hopes to have with that man. Obviously...

So, it goes to show, women value traits that have IMMEDIATE RESULTS and POWER in MEN amongst society and tribes that they live in. It usually translates to the woman's instinctive need for protection and provision. It also helps if the man in question is of "superior" genetic stock (in her instinctual reasoning) to sire children with.

So upfront a woman wants a *naturally* "dominant man" to make babies with. It helps if he's intelligent. It's another good bonus if he's "good-looking". Don't hurt to have money in the bank. He's tall, big, "strong-looking" like he can fight and beat down his opponents and so forth.

So, in that sense, (white) women who you say might "screw" tall, big, athletic black guys" who are naturally socially and/or sexually-dominant but have "rocks for brains" are still making "good choices" hypergamously because the women are "trading up" for the man's *immediate* upfront traits that show up directly.

The tall, big black man who is naturally athletic is seen by his imposing size and physical strength. It's also obvious he's the social butterly or "smooth talker" knowing how to dominate in social communication and conversation.

Whether the (black) man friendly uses his dominance traits to exert power over people and his surroundings "friendly" or "bullies" his way by his dominance traits to put other people in place; the woman instinctively tells who can "run the show" of any social scene, gathering or situation and she's drawn to that for her own protection and provision. That's the factor.

Jed Mask said...

(Part 2)

At first, one can't always "size up one's intelligence" directly until closer examination or doing something that requires clear display of intellect. The (white) woman in question won't really "pay attention" to "intelligence" if it would bring immediate practical results that exerts *power* over a circumstance or individual. Say, that why women don't "get with" intelligent, scrawny nerds who can't "socially dominant" because they are socially-awkward and/or inept or have some kind of personal "flaw" in their personal/genetic makeup. But if those same intelligent, scrawny nerds can "outwardly display" their "usefulness" of their inherent natural intelligence that benefits towards "protection and provision" like he knows how to "cleverly" beat up his attacker (cheating or not); he uses his intelligence to do business of any sort that makes MONEY; he knows how to "scheme" or "manipulate" people and situations to get his way; abd any *practical* way he outwardly uses his intelligence to reap beneficial real-world results. Hence Zuckersberg, hence Bill Gates... I'm sure there's better examples than just those two but you get the point.

The intelligent, scrawny nerd is under the radar of *some* women. Might not be the most "physically-attractive" but he's not a complete "ghost" in her eyes.

I've seen and slightly known a few guys of the "intelligent, scrawny nerd type" and some guys are not half bad if they just "fixed themselves" in a few areas. Such as "body work" AKA "gain muscle" or "buff up" a bit and not be so "skinny".

I remember a young (white) man since high school who was quite "nerdy" and "geeky" but he was "brave" and comfortable in his own skin and even though his personal behaviour was "low class" to the high class preppies, jocks and "cool kids" in school he was CONFIDENT in himself outwardly NATURALLY and IT SHOWED. If he was "insecure about himself I couldn't tell "outwardly" because he just behaved as though he was "comfortable" with everyone and wasn't feeling "shy, insecure or "awkward" in the presence of "higher class" people. He behaved as though no one was "better" than him, and it showed. I noticed girls were attracted to him. Some decent-looking... Thought I overhead him about a "girlfriend" and I wouldn't doubt it. He had a cool, loud but positive friendly personality and even though he was "nerdy and geeky" with it; he could get along well with people; so it worked for him. He was also a bit "physically-strong" or "working on that area" since I last met him. Into "martial arts" kind of thing.

Don't know where he went and is going in life, but God knoweth. Things like this I keep in remembrance to *PRAY* for afterwards. I'm confident to say he's doing alright if he's matured well since high school as many of my peers have. Amen.

~ Sincerely,

Bro. Jed

(P.S. Life's hard on both sides (male and female) but it's up to the *INDIVIDUAL* to play their own cards PROPERLY for *THEIR OWN GOOD*; no one else can "make *YOUR OWN DECISIONS* for *YOU*". Amen.)

Unknown said...

Jed Mask said...

I'm aware of all that and more, wasn't any point in writing more to get the point across that female could care less what damage they do to their tribe or nation, all the do is fuck whomever the media tells them too...

And those Africans/Arabs/Whatever ain't shit, most are scrawny fucking cowards who get a pass because the media is to busy pushing BLM bullshit to notice how worthless they really are. When you can ALWAYS pull the race card as a defense it doesn't make you socially dominant, but a worthless loser who need a crutch to make a play.

Size don't mean shit either, sure it helps in a fight sometimes, but it sure as fuck isn't the deciding factor, Jet Li, or Bruce Lee come to mind along with many men I've know is socom and there is a reason that is 99% white... No other race has the moxy and can handle it or will try which says quite a bit on it's own.

I could go on but there is no point... Females are toxic, period and destroy everything men build.

Artisanal Toad said...

@Mountain Man

Reading comprehension. I didn't say Roosh wrote it. I said it wasn't surprising he struggles with it.

It's Roosh's site and ipso facto, he approved of it. If you've read his own writing you'd be able to see he struggles with accepting Scripture as God's Word. Last I checked, he was drawing closer but still in rejection mode.

Lost Saga Heroes said...

Dele Alli (Central Midfield/right foot)
Marco Asensio (Attacking Midfield/left foot)
Leon Bailey (Left Wing/left foot)
Riechedly Bazoer (Central Midfield/right foot)
Gabriel Boschilia (Attacking Midfield/left foot)
Julian Brandt (Left Wing/right foot)
Carlos Fernandez (Centre Forward/left foot)
Andreas Christensen (Centre Back/right foot)
Kingsley Coman (Right Wing/right foot)
Ante Coric (Attacking Midfield/both foot)
Amadou Diawara (Defensive Midfield/both foot)
Mahmoud Dahoud (Central Midfield/right foot)
Danilo Barbosa (Defensive Midfield/left foot)
Moussa Dembélé (Centre Forward/right foot)
Ousmane Dembélé (Right Wing/left foot)
Gianluigi Donnarumma (Goalkeeper/right foot)
Breel Embolo (Centre Forward/right foot)
Gabriel Barbosa (Right Wing/left foot)
Aleksandr Golovin (Attacking Midfield/right foot)
Goncalo Guedes (Secondary Striker/right foot)
Demarai Gray (Left Wing/right foot)
Marko Grujic (Central Midfield/right foot)
Alen Halilovic (Attacking Midfield/left foot)
Kelechi Iheanacho (Centre Forward/left foot)
Alex Iwobi (Left Wing/right foot)
Viktor Kovalenko (Attacking Midfield/right foot)
Ruben Loftus-Cheek (Central Midfield/right foot)
Lucas Hernández (Centre Back/left foot)
Emanuel Mammana (Centre Back/right foot)
Nathan (Left Wing/right foot)
Olivier Ntcham (Central Midfield/right foot)
Marcus Rashford (Centre Forward/right foot)
Renato Sanches (Central Midfield/right foot)
Jairo Riedewald (Centre Back/left foot)
Rúben Neves (Defensive Midfield/right foot)
Tonny Sanabria (Centre Forward/right foot)
Leroy Sané (Right Wing/left foot)
Jonathan Tah (Centre Back/right foot)
Youri Tielemans (Central Midfield/both foot)
Almamy Touré (Right Back/right foot)

Unknown said...

There ain't no selfish gene. Atheists know less about DNA than they know about History, which is hardly anything. Women don't go after "Bad Boys" per se. Women want security. Rich guys and tough guys offer security. Nice guys are metrosexual fags with little spending cash and no courage to stand up to bullies. Women are hardwired to go after security because they have to carry babies and take care of offspring. They go after guys with resources and the ability to defend them.

Jed Mask said...

@Deaths Head

...Okay, so, you "hate" women? Get to the point. Do you also "hate" Blacks, Muslims and Arab people?

Well, ideally sir, it's not good to "hate anyone". It's not good or loving.

Also, ah, the "media"; who cares about it's "messaging"? It's obvious the media's always about an "agenda" being pushed on the masses of society. Always will be the case. We must focus on OUR LIVES, not the the pettiness of the world.

The way you talk with the constant cursing and "anger" is like you're "mad at the world" and not taking direction of your life?

You may be focusing too much on what's "outside" instead of what relates to YOUR LIFE.

Post a Comment