3 ms·

>> When you tell him "society only needs a small percentage of men." That looks to be a fairly near quote of something I posted earlier and I want to point out

>> When you tell him "society only needs a small percentage of men." That looks to be a fairly near quote of something I posted earlier and I want to point out that was not what was said (in case you were quoting that). Biologically (not socially) we only need a small percentage of men. Which ties in to the rest of what you are saying directly. Men (biologically) have a greater impetus to try to conquer and to take risks because their deaths are inconsequential to the task of propagating the species. We see this all over the animal kingdom and I don't think humans are much different at the end of it all.

r0pchainer 7y ago
Biologically, humans shouldn't exist in tribes of greater than like 20 people or some small number. Socially, we have countries with millions of people living under one flag. It turns out the hypergamy negatively affects the average man more than the elite man. So how do you build a system the ensures that the vast majority of men don't die off? You must control for hypergamy. Polygamy is a smaller issue, because the number of men who act in a manner that breaks a society is naturally much smaller than the number of women that can act in a manner to break society. Take 1000 people. 500 of them are men. 50 of them can show interest to the vast majority of the women, and the women will gladly oblige. So here, we have 50 people (the elite men) that can cause unstable families. Of the 500 women, each of them is trying to pick the best man given her qualities. So here, we have 500 people that can cause unstable families (all the women). This would ultimately cause a large society with no control over hypergamy to dwindle into a small population over time. If we believe for a second people are pairing off "because they have matching personalities", we're all going to have a really bad time.
- mythrwy 7y ago
  You have some good points but the Scarlet Letter style conclusion scares me. What I'd like to see is a society that addresses the essential biological needs of men and women without stoning, beheading, drumming up wars or twitter shaming. It's a big project though.
  - r0pchainer 7y ago
    I mean, we're currently living through the equivalent for men. Except instead of "A" for adulteress, it's "L" for loser. Funny how the tides come and go. But you're right, we don't want to keep swinging the pendulum back and forth, we should work towards balance. The only way you can balance an unstable system is by learning more about it and accepting its truths.
  - redis_mlc 7y ago
    What the parent described is true - that's basic human psychology. What's new is the scenario he described is playing out in real-life on Tindr now, with roughly those ratios. And it's not pleasant, as reported in the press. If you're squeamish, I suggest not researching it further.

r0pchainer 7y ago

Biologically, humans shouldn't exist in tribes of greater than like 20 people or some small number. Socially, we have countries with millions of people living under one flag. It turns out the hypergamy negatively affects the average man more than the elite man. So how do you build a system the ensures that the vast majority of men don't die off? You must control for hypergamy. Polygamy is a smaller issue, because the number of men who act in a manner that breaks a society is naturally much smaller than the number of women that can act in a manner to break society. Take 1000 people. 500 of them are men. 50 of them can show interest to the vast majority of the women, and the women will gladly oblige. So here, we have 50 people (the elite men) that can cause unstable families. Of the 500 women, each of them is trying to pick the best man given her qualities. So here, we have 500 people that can cause unstable families (all the women). This would ultimately cause a large society with no control over hypergamy to dwindle into a small population over time. If we believe for a second people are pairing off "because they have matching personalities", we're all going to have a really bad time.

mythrwy 7y ago
You have some good points but the Scarlet Letter style conclusion scares me. What I'd like to see is a society that addresses the essential biological needs of men and women without stoning, beheading, drumming up wars or twitter shaming. It's a big project though.
- r0pchainer 7y ago
  I mean, we're currently living through the equivalent for men. Except instead of "A" for adulteress, it's "L" for loser. Funny how the tides come and go. But you're right, we don't want to keep swinging the pendulum back and forth, we should work towards balance. The only way you can balance an unstable system is by learning more about it and accepting its truths.
- redis_mlc 7y ago
  What the parent described is true - that's basic human psychology. What's new is the scenario he described is playing out in real-life on Tindr now, with roughly those ratios. And it's not pleasant, as reported in the press. If you're squeamish, I suggest not researching it further.