Talk-Polywell.org

From: http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/02/0 ... -marriage/

In 1983, Marcia Guttentag and Robert Secord posited the theory that in female-heavy populations, men would become more promiscuous, and that in male-heavy populations, they’d become more faithful. Much of their thinking seemed to be confirmed in an analysis of 117 countries by Scott South and Katherine Trent. The pair found that, in developed countries, having a higher ratio of men led to more marriage for women, less divorce, and fewer illegitimate children. Other studies have had similar findings across cultures and time.

=============

Well there are a LOT of men in prison. It seems to screw up the social culture of the groups that are targeted. And worst of all has given us rap music. Which often sounds a lot like rape music.

On the subject of music, I found it intriguing that a disproportionate number of pop musicians from the 60's had a fairly common parental background. Either military officers, military research scientists, intelligence operatives, or heirs to family fortunes/old wealth.

I thought it was just the '60's, until I read a book by my favorite new wave musician, he wrote about how his father did top secret work for NASA. When his father wasn't there, guys from his workplace came to his home and asked his mother if his father talked in his sleep.

It seems like this reminds me of something I heard on the radio a while back about educated chinese women called "leftover" if they get to 30 without getting married, because of the trend you are talking about.

MSimon wrote:From: http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/02/0 ... -marriage/

In 1983, Marcia Guttentag and Robert Secord posited the theory that in female-heavy populations, men would become more promiscuous, and that in male-heavy populations, they’d become more faithful. Much of their thinking seemed to be confirmed in an analysis of 117 countries by Scott South and Katherine Trent. The pair found that, in developed countries, having a higher ratio of men led to more marriage for women, less divorce, and fewer illegitimate children. Other studies have had similar findings across cultures and time.



Well there are a LOT of men in prison. It seems to screw up the social culture of the groups that are targeted. And worst of all has given us rap music. Which often sounds a lot like rape music.

I am a little confused the title of the link is the "ascendancy of the alpha female". That is women running things..okay but if these so called alpha females get married in much lower numbers, and have few or even no kids compared to their less educated/successful female peers, how will they maintain their rule? Alpha males have ruled throughout history because they were quite good at propagating their genes often at the expense of “beta” males. Rich Martha Steward for instance has one kid by her ex, whom I believe is a lesbian, obviously the end of her genetic line. If she were a man she probably would have had multiple kids by different wives much younger than her. I mean Donald Trump had kids with all three of his wives, for instance, obviously passing his genes on. But if the most successful women have the least amount of kids, that would be selective pressure away from whatever genetic (or behavioral) qualities that make one an "alpha female", in favor of those less interested in career and more interested in having babies. Could that perhaps be the ultimate reason why alpha males have been more common throughout history than alpha females? Maybe more than sexism or discrimination? Just like tolerating homosexuality long term will lead to fewer gays, not more of them. Society pressuring everyone including gays to marry and produce offspring just led to more propagation of whatever genes disposes one to be gay. Homosexuals left to their own devices would only hook up mostly with other gays producing few offspring a self-limiting process.

williatw wrote:

MSimon wrote:From: http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/02/0 ... -marriage/

In 1983, Marcia Guttentag and Robert Secord posited the theory that in female-heavy populations, men would become more promiscuous, and that in male-heavy populations, they’d become more faithful. Much of their thinking seemed to be confirmed in an analysis of 117 countries by Scott South and Katherine Trent. The pair found that, in developed countries, having a higher ratio of men led to more marriage for women, less divorce, and fewer illegitimate children. Other studies have had similar findings across cultures and time.



Well there are a LOT of men in prison. It seems to screw up the social culture of the groups that are targeted. And worst of all has given us rap music. Which often sounds a lot like rape music.

I am a little confused the title of the link is the "ascendancy of the alpha female". That is women running things..okay but if these so called alpha females get married in much lower numbers, and have few or even no kids compared to their less educated/successful female peers, how will they maintain their rule? Alpha males have ruled throughout history because they were quite good at propagating their genes often at the expense of “beta” males. Rich Martha Steward for instance has one kid by her ex, whom I believe is a lesbian, obviously the end of her genetic line. If she were a man she probably would have had multiple kids by different wives much younger than her. I mean Donald Trump had kids with all three of his wives, for instance, obviously passing his genes on. But if the most successful women have the least amount of kids, that would be selective pressure away from whatever genetic (or behavioral) qualities that make one an "alpha female", in favor of those less interested in career and more interested in having babies. Could that perhaps be the ultimate reason why alpha males have been more common throughout history than alpha females? Maybe more than sexism or discrimination? Just like tolerating homosexuality long term will lead to fewer gays, not more of them. Society pressuring everyone including gays to marry and produce offspring just led to more propagation of whatever genes disposes one to be gay. Homosexuals left to their own devices would only hook up mostly with other gays producing few offspring a self-limiting process.

Yes to all of that. I think the title of the piece was semi ironic.

Funny enough getting gays to commit to each other reduces the chances that they will interact with females. Of course conservatives are against it. It is ironic that anger tends to produces more of what you are angry about.

If you try to push people in a direction they will go in the opposite direction. Otherwise they will do as they darnn well please.

Better phrased:

If you start in ordering humans about they will do the opposite otherwise they will do as they darnn well please.

Funny enough getting gays to commit to each other reduces the chances that they will interact with females. Of course conservatives are against it. It is ironic that anger tends to produces more of what you are angry about.

Um, interacting with females does not produce children. Boning them does. What does commitment have to do with that. Just about every gay person was made by a straight person. Gay people commiting does not make more gay people, or less. What on earth are you talking about.

kcdodd wrote:

Funny enough getting gays to commit to each other reduces the chances that they will interact with females. Of course conservatives are against it. It is ironic that anger tends to produces more of what you are angry about.

Um, interacting with females does not produce children. Boning them does. What does commitment have to do with that. Just about every gay person was made by a straight person. Gay people commiting does not make more gay people, or less. What on earth are you talking about.

I think he meant "have sex with" when he said interact. Rachel Maddow, Ellen DeGeneres, Sally Ride, Tammy Bruce, etc. can "interact" with men all they want, left to their own choice, they would not be having too much sex with men, thereby not have very many biological children. Just as apparently being an alpha female (even a heterosexual one) is to albeit inadvertently select for low fecundity. Whether I think that is good or bad (or even care) is irrelevant. The point is that allowing gays to be gay will be to select away from the genes that make/contribute to someone being homosexual. The aforementioned women (& obviously gay men) exist because society pressured their ancestors some of whom were probably gay to marry probably straight people and produce offspring, passing their genes own.

MSimon wrote:Better phrased:

If you start in ordering humans about they will do the opposite otherwise they will do as they darnn well please.

That's the smaller fraction. People who don't have the emotional need to rebel most often act as sheep and do as instructed. Witness the witless 1/4 of the planet in China who do whatever "The Party" instructs, including deliberately creating a society with far fewer women than men. The Chinese generally do as instructed, no matter how opposed to common sense and their indiviudual interests the instructions are.

Pretending your adolescent rebellion is indicative of the bulk of humanity is far fetched and self-serving tripe. And of course, apart from those who follow and those who refuse to follow, there is the significant portion who are not anti-establishment and whom lead. For you to pretend the majority have your emtional problems and feel a need to rebel is the very worst sort of generalization error.

Re: williatw

Having gay people commit has nothing to do with sex. As if there is some probability of a gay person "accidentally" having sex with a woman if they are not in a gay marriage. Gay people don't want to have sex with the opposite gender, thats the whole point. If they did want to, since when did marriage ever stop that. None of that sentence makes sense to me.

The currently proposed theory of genes/evolution for gay/lesbian have nothing to do with gay/lesbian people. They have to do with secondary affects of those genes in straight people. Taking 100% of gay people out of reproduction because their gay, would only take out 5% of those who carry it and passing it on. But who knows of any of that is true anyway.

kcdodd wrote:Re: williatw

Having gay people commit has nothing to do with sex. As if there is some probability of a gay person "accidentally" having sex with a woman if they are not in a gay marriage. Gay people don't want to have sex with the opposite gender, thats the whole point. If they did want to, since when did marriage ever stop that. None of that sentence makes sense to me.

The currently proposed theory of genes/evolution for gay/lesbian have nothing to do with gay/lesbian people. They have to do with secondary affects of those genes in straight people. Taking 100% of gay people out of reproduction because their gay, would only take out 5% of those who carry it and passing it on. But who knows of any of that is true anyway.

My reading always places the number around 2%. But the rest of what you said pretty much aligns with my understanding. The theorized genetic component is ubiquitous in the population.

MSimon wrote:
Yes to all of that. I think the title of the piece was semi ironic.

Funny enough getting gays to commit to each other reduces the chances that they will interact with females. Of course conservatives are against it.

Always oversimplification with you. Your logic on this is exactly like one of your arguments on behalf of legalizing recreational drug usage; That you can tax it, and therefore obtain revenue from it, so therefore we ought to do it.


It completely overlooks the fact that there are OTHER reasons why it is a bad idea. The benefit are completely outweighed by the bad consequences.

MSimon wrote:
It is ironic that anger tends to produces more of what you are angry about.

It is ironic that you can only see the sort of motivation in others that you see in yourself. Prudence motivates conservatism. Not anger. Read Burke.

MSimon wrote:
If you try to push people in a direction they will go in the opposite direction. Otherwise they will do as they darnn well please.

Only a percentage. During the US War of Independence, approximately a third of the population was in favor, a third was opposed, and a third was indifferent.

You and I may have the rebellious attitude, (I am constantly accused of this.*) but it is not a universal trait amongst our fellow men.






* I am not against doing what i'm told, i'm just against doing what i'm told if it is only to satisfy the whim of those who would rule me. If it is reasonable, I have no issue with authority.

People who don't have the emotional need to rebel

Have you ever raised teenagers? I'd warrant 70% or more fall into the "rebel" category for about a decade.

Me? I always question authority. It is the scientific method.

MSimon wrote:

People who don't have the emotional need to rebel

Have you ever raised teenagers? I'd warrant 70% or more fall into the "rebel" category for about a decade.

Me? I always question authority. It is the scientific method.

After having thought about your point, (rebellion) I would have to say most of my comments on this drug issue are likely a rebellion against your attempts to push me into accepting your conclusions.

Before you started pushing, I didn't care about the issue at all, but i've noticed the harder you push, the more I feel like pushing back. I guess "leave me alone" is not an option?


Like I said, you and I are probably rebellious by nature, but not everyone is.

I think your pushing back is very helpful. It improves my arguments.

My only wish is that you were better grounded in the subject matter. In all my years only Clayton Cramer was as well versed in the subject matter as I am and took your position. I haven't discussed anything with him for a few years so I don't know what his position is these days.

In any case the right is going to get killed on this subject in the court of public opinion. And that means the left will be winning elections on it. Which means more institutionalized socialism.

What is even more ironic is that the degradation of the culture that bothers you so is in good measure the result of prohibition. See my "Why Men Are Scum" bit in "General". We could reduce the incidence of single motherhood considerably by ending prohibition.

I was discussing all that back in 2006

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... phics.html

So it is not a new idea for me. What amuses me is that the right is very attached to ascribing all this to morality when the cause is biology. Just as they have made drug taking a moral issue when it is in fact a biological one. You can fix small cracks in biology with morality. But you cannot fix chasms with it.

The left in America causes problems. The "Christian" right in America supports the causes long after the left has abandoned the causes. The left then tries to patch the problems. Causing more problems. You abhor the libertarians but a lot of this would sort itself out if we just left people alone.

This has way more truth than people are willing to admit:

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types -- the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution. — G.K. Chesterton

Anything that reduces the number of men in a population (wars, excessive jailing) gives libertines like me much greater scope than they would have in ordinary circumstances. Funny enough I have been arguing for policies that would narrow the scope of libertines and you argue for those that widen them. I'm pretty certain that you haven't given the biological aspects of culture much thought. I have.

I argue against my own personal position out of knowledge. As far as I can tell the right argues against its position out of ignorance. I do try to dispel the ignorance. Without much success. Pity.

Do I expect any of this to change? Not soon.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck