Archimedes

Great article. Don't feed the trolls is such a simple rule, but sometimes hard to follow. You give the troll the benifit of the doubt, and want to discover the truth, and yet for him or her it's just about attention. The best thing is just indifference towards them. They are similiar to narcissists in that way.

You claimed I am a black and white thinking guy, I asked you for evidence. You didn't provide any. When you asked me to provide evidence for my accusation, I told you that I'm going to do it, if you provide evidence for my supposed black and white thinking. So again, why should I give you evidence for an accusation, if you refuse to do the same in the first place? Besides my accusation is accurate enough and I can back it up by evidence. You'll see if you post some instances of my supposed black and white thinking. And I'm talking actual instanes, not speculating about how I might react, like you tried before. I understand that you care about those things for yourself and are quite knowlegable about r/K-theory, but that's not what bothers me. As I've said several times, it bothers me that you try to frame your discussion partner into a certain sets of characteristics in order to make an argument, instead of responding to what they say. That's not a discussion, that's talking to an imaginary person in your head. It doesn't matter if you use your knowledge about r/K-theory or something else to do this. When you pushing a certain value onto other people, anyone with his own value set will refuse it. Sure, you don't have to appease anyone, just as I don't have to discuss things with somebody, who's using dishonest discussion styles. I will respond to your evidence about my supposed black and white thinking, as I've promised, but that's about it.

There's a bit where you talk about sexuality based on r-selected behavior, but I'm not going back and find it, unless you provide instances of black and white thinking. See, I asked you first, so why should I do something that you ask me of, if you refuse to do the same in the first place? It has never been a trade, I just reminded you that I asked you first to back up your accusation. Funny how you are able to correctly see how inferrying and then saying that this means X and no other thing is black and white thinking (which I never did, btw. You just assume I will do it in the future), but at the same time you think you are able to determine whether somebody is r- or K-selected based on their posting style, and then make assumption about all their character traits based on that. I'm annoyed by a guy who keeps insisting that I have certain character traits, even though I have showed him several times that I don't. I'm annoyed by a discussion style which is based on making assumptions about the other person, instead of interacting with him. And that is not the sign of a weak male. Stef does the same thing in his call in shows. Is he a low-status male as well?

Sure, if you cut and paste instances of my supposed black and white thinking, as I asked you first about it.

It's funny how you acccuse me of black and white thinking but you yourself claim that you can determine the sexual behavior of people based on their posting style. I opened this thread because I read an interesting book about promiscuity in hunter gatherer tribes, and asked myself if raising kids in those tribes is better than monogamy. I posted the facts about that book and added reasons for why childcare within a tribe may be better than monogamy. Does that mean I want promiscuity? No! How could you make this assumption or even talk like this is a fact? I prefer monogamy, simply because it is the better strategy for raising kids in our current environment, but at the same time I can acknowlege that in a different environment, a promiscuous mating behavior may be preferable. I'm interested about examples of my supposedly black and white thinking. I think you are too caught up in alpha/beta/gamma thinking patterns and try to put everyone around in those three categories, which leads you to see things in people that aren't there. Especially, since humans can't be classified by alpha/beta/gamma labels. We don't have the characteristcs of such a species. And believe me, I've been applying PUA principles for a long time in my life, only to realize that most of their teachings are missguided or inaccurate. I think PUA may be a good tool for social retards , but once you get some experience, you see that many of their principles just apply in certain situations with certain people.

But I didn't think about other people in this thread when I told you that you can't speak for me. So you are wrong again about your internet predictions. The reason for why I told you that you can't speak for me is simple: In a discussion people make their arguments based on reason and logic. They don't try to invade the boundaries of other people by telling them how they think and what they prefer. I wanted to steer the discussion back to the topic. You went on with your armchair psychoanalysis of me, so what discussion we had is propably lost anway.

Having boundaries about not letting others determine what you think is sign of self-worth. It has nothing to do with emotions, but with the protection of the self. If I cared about maximum emotional comfort, I wouldn't have called you out and went along with it. But go on, continue play the forum psychic and convince yourself how you have it all figured out based on reading some of my posts. @ J.D. Stembal There's a post currently in mod hell in which I reply to your last post. I hope it get's released soon.

Immegration and welfare exist, because people vote for it. There are also people who like to work for those government programs. So yeah, thoese people display strong r-behavior. Anyway, I went through your link and here's what I've found: And if you go through the traits listed in that article than two r-traits also apply to humans: strong sex drive and small size at birth.

Yes, our brain and pregnancy time is a K-characteristic. But there are also humans who engage r-selected behavior, otherwise we wouldn't have things like immigration, welfare, and so on. That's why I think humans are displaying r and K characteristics depending on the environment. Trees have traits like longevity and strong competitiveness, which are characteristics of K-strategists. But they also produce thousands of offspring, which are traits of r-strategists.

I wasn't emotional, until you crossed my boundaries. It's normal human behavior to become competitive, once somebody tries to push you into a corner. Before that I argued based on facts and evidence. I think you are projecting shallowness and emotional language onto me, as you talk about my character instead of responding to my arguments. Most species are both r and K at the same time. As are humans. r/K is not a dichotomy.

That's not why I say you are making things up as you go along. If I prefer civilization, I also prefer competition. Therefore I can't be a r-selected individual.

No, calling someone immature when he says "you prefer X" or "you like X", even though that person as no way to know if he's right or not, has nothing to to with r/K-selection theory. It's called setting your boundaries. You tried to push certain traits on me, and I refused to accept it. That was a competitive behavior on my part. Anway, I think you make things up as you go along, because if you really thought I was r-selected, why would you assume I prefer civilization, which is much more competitive than hunter gatherer societies? That's a contradiction.

I think you are right Matt. That's why Elephants are still labeled as K-selected, even though they have polygyny.

You didn't guess. You said that I prefer civilization. That's a very immature discussion style. As is trying to shift the topic towards the private life of your discussion partner.

How about you stop speaking for me? You don't know what social sexual behavior I prefer, so don't act like you do.

Most species need to be both competitive and cooperative to succeed in their society. That's why most species don't fit the binary r/K-narrative. http://www.britannica.com/science/K-selected-species "K-selected species possess relatively stable populations and tend to produce relatively low numbers of offspring; however, individual offspring tend to be quite large in comparison with r-selected species. K-selected species are characterized by long gestation periods lasting several months, slow maturation (and thus extended parental care), and long life spans. In addition, they tend to inhabit relatively stablebiological communities, such as late-successional or climax forests " This applies to hunter gatherer societies. Elephants engage in polygyny and yet they are still labeled as K-selected. Monogamy is not a requirement for K-selection. People also have different opinions about civilization being better than primitive egalitarian socities, especially those who currently live in those socities. There exist cases where researchers went off and lived among hunter gatherers for the rest of their lives. Stef may prefer civilization, but so what, he's just a guy on the internet.

But in those socieites women initiate the sleeping around. Take the Mosuo for example. When women become fertile, they invite a man into their house for sex. When she gets pregnant, the kid remains with her family. The father may provide some ressources for the woman's family, but he usually doesn't live with her. It's the woman's family who takes care of her and the child. So in this scenario, a woman doesn't really care if the father sleeps with another woman, as she is able to raise her kid without him. There is no jealousy which is also reflected in their language, which has no word for jealousy. However, Mosuo became serial monogamous recently, because of political pressures and incentives. But before that, they definitly engaged in promiscuity. Even after child birth women used to have multiple partners. As with most organisms, you can't pin the Mosuo down to one type of r/K-mating behavior. On the one hand, they engage in promiscuity (r-selected), on the other hand, they invest many ressources in their children (K-selected). It's a false dichotomy to try to put them into one category The same thing applies to socialist hunter gatherer tribes. Just because they were egalitarian, doesn't mean they didn't invest time and energy into their kids. They had to, or otherwise their tribe would have died out.

This alpha/beta thing doesn't apply to humans, given that we evolved from a promiscuous species. Fun fact: Gorillas are a polygynous species and the alpha males have tiny balls and dicks smaller than my pinky. I guess you can't have everything as an alpha

I don't think it's primal and just became important for both sexes during the last 10 000 years. There are still hunter gatherer tribes today, who don't really care about paternal identification or men having kids with other women. In those societies it's even encouraged to sleep outside your marriage and things like mate guarding are frowned upon. If it is really primal to want monogamy from your partner, than why are there tribes like that? My guess is that it depends on the economy of a society. Those tribes are very egalitarian. Everything is shared and private property doesn't exist. This results in less incentives for parents to raise parents as monogamous couple, as their are no advantages over a collective care of all children. Once you have private property, it makes sense to put all your energy in raising just your own children, to give them an advantage over others.

If sex with children is the reason for their peacefulness, why are tribes not hostile to each other? When two tribes meat, they usually engage in bonding through sex. It's hard to say what causes the relative peacefulness of bonobos. Not all benefits listened in the first post can be substituted in monogamy. If you have more than two parents looking after the child, the child is less likely to be abused. Even in extended families the parents usually have the final say and many people prefer to look away. In a promiscuous family, everyone has a stake in the raising of the kids, which would propably increase the chance of somebody confronting the child abuser. There's also the lack of trauma in children, if their parents cheat, since survival doesn't depend as much on the bonding between the biological parents as it does in monogamy.

At this point, we are just arguing semantics. Delaying gradification means that you delay something that gives you pleasure in the moment in order to gain a reward in the long term. If you continually delay your shor-term gradifications, they will loose their intensity. But that's what I'm not talking about. I'm talking about experiencing an urge and deciding not to engage in it, because it violates your values. There will be a short term negative experience, otherwise it wouldn't be an urge, and there will be long term positive experience, otherwise your values wouldn't feel important to you. I guess not many people in monogamous people are going to tell you about their experience of seeing another attractive person and turning them down, because they value their current relationship over short term flings. Going against that initial attraction causes a negative experience in the short term, otherwise you wouldn't be attracted to the person in the first person. If your relationship is strong, you will probably not be frustrated by that experience and feel a stronger bond with your partner. So do you agree that I didn't answer myself by saying this adaption was because of economic reasons. Not every economic decision taken by the parents results in a healthier environment for the child. You weren't talking about bonobos. You talked how humans went through a change 10000 years ago and that women mate choices changed and things like traits like pair-bonding, monogamy, sexual self-control, etc. have been selected for. I showed you that many women are still attracted to those guys, who are displaying opposite traits. Studies have shown that women are attracted to different types of men depending on ther menstrual cycle. It's during ovulation, when they are most attracted to hot looking guys, while they prefer nurturing men during the rest of the time. It's not so obvious that women select for the traits that you have mentioned. It makes more sense that they are pursuing a cuckholding strategy. Of course, not all women are like that and there are the rare virtuous women, but Stef himself said they are incredible rare. You got most things right, except that there are no alphas among bonobos. The females are in charge and they are promiscuous. They usually try to sleep with any male available. I don't know if their sex drive increases in captivity, but it's alreay pretty high in the wild. I think sex is as emotionally for bonobos as it is for humans. We share many of our positive traits with them. For example, empathy, intelligence, caring, nurturig, cooperation, etc. If bonobos wouldn't experience emotions during sex, how could they use it as a means for bonding and conflict resolution? Bonobos are also pretty reliable. They are pretty peaceful, there has never been an instance of male to male killing. Bonobos live a pretty secure life. There's no predator hunting them. So I don't think their promiscurity is caused by the things you mention. In the book there is an anecdote by a man raised in a household with two female and two male adults as parents. There were six kids and he said that all adults helped raising and shaping him to be the person he is today. Why would it be a problem when the four adults have self-knowledge?

While I get where you are coming from, I don't think they are dumb people. Hillary seems highly intelligent. She just uses it to take advantage of the public.

If you have the desire to eat sweets, but don't act upon it because you intellectually value your health over short-term gradification, you will still have a negative experience of not satisfying your urge to eat sweets. No, I was talking about why adults started to pursue a socially mongamous strategy. It was economically driven, because males wanted to know if they really were the father when raising and protecting a family became more expensive. If that's the case then why are dark triad personalities so good at attracting women? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad#As_mating_strategy Why do nice guys have such a hard time? Why are there so few women interested in philosophy and virtue?

The evolution towards social monogamy took place out of necessity. Raising kids became much more time consuming and expensive, once property was invented and people stopped shareing everything. Just like forgoing immediate gradification of eating sweets has become a necessity today, even though it feels unnatural in the short term. I think humans evolved to be socially monogamous once agriculture happend, which means couples spend time and ressources to raise offspring, but weren't necessarily sexual exclusive. I think with the amount of cheating going on, it's safe to say that we are not a sexual monogamous species. Being social monogamous is probably just as unnatural for humans as not eating sweets. We intellectually understand that it's the right decision, given our current environment, but it still causes us frustration in the short term. I think it's unfair to call multimale-multifemale-mating behavior degenerate. Given that bonobos are highly intelligent, empathic and peaceful, and yet engage in a sexual strategy that our society deems degenerate. I opened this thread because I wanted to discuss if such an environment is better for kids than social monogomy. Interesting. I'm definitly going to check this out. I've spent some time researching about the book and apparently S@D cherry picked data to push an agenda. On the other hand there are accusation about misogyny about the book. Have you read it and can talk about those two things?

Your example about the serial killer is invalid, because serial killers are special outlets of the human species and are not representitive of humans. Besides, we are comparing entire species and not single members. While it's true that different environments lead to different behaviour, it doesn't necessarily lead to differen desires. People have still a desire for sweet unhealthy food, which once was a useful trait but became maladaptive in our modern times. We have to force ourselves to not binge eat chocolate cookies all the time. So yeah, we may behave differently in order to adapt to our modern environment, but it's not like the natural desire for junk food has disappeared. Evolution doesn't work so fast. That's why companies are able to sell tons of unhealthy food today. The same thing applies to our sexual behaviour. We engaged in multimale-multifemale-mating for most of human history. With the invention of agriculture people started to own private property and aquire ressources at a much higher rate. It became important to know if your child is really yours as a man, because you were stuck with raising and protecting your family without the help of a larger tribe. But on the other hand, the gangbang, orgy and double penetration genre is still popular in porn. If we naturally want female exclusivity, and not because the environment forces us to, why do men watch those kind of porn clips? Wouldn't reverse gangbangs be far more popular?