https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmEHIhu-_DQ
https://veryayshun.blogspot.com/2013/07/i-was-born-son-of-lawless-man.html
https://veryayshun.blogspot.com/2013/07/i-was-born-son-of-lawless-man.html
Scroll To The Bottom Of This Blog Post And Read The Paiges That I Just Scanned And Uploaded On This Blog Post (The Page With The Title THE MARRIAGE MARKET). They'll Explain You're Marriage Decisions And Why Many Of You Wouldn't Be Opposed To Polygyny (Sharing A Wealthy, High Status Male LIKE ME With Other Females).
Girls, Marriage Is An ECONOMIC DECISION First And Foremost! ("Does He Have The Wealth To Support Me And Any Offspring We Have." - Girl's Unconscious Thoughts (No I Don't, Girl!)
Costly signaling was a big deal when men proposed to women they barely knew and were lucky to have so much as kissed them before the wedding. People live together now and are often already sharing finances before an overpriced lump of carbon is ever purchased.
Arrived today: the custom engagement ring I designed for @sentientist. Finely fabricated by @jhollywoodd.
"One sample of 1,000 newlywed couples found that ring price was strongly negatively correlated with the age of the future bride; men purchased more expensive engagement rings for younger fiancées than for older fiancées."
https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1148686136719663114
https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/963874166717014017
Diamonds are practically useless but worth more than a thousand words.
They work as a commitment signal, that (cheap) talk cannot offer.
An intuition backed up by game theory:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/272/1575/1877 …
Conor opposes diamond engagement rings, calling them "the ultimate sucker's purchase." I've advocated this same position in the past, but here's a passage, from Paul Bloom's excellent How Pleasure Works, that made me think twice:
[Psychologist Geoffrey Miller's first insight about costly signaling is the idea] that displays of personal quality are only taken seriously if they involve some cost, some level of difficulty or sacrifice. If anyone can easily do the display, then it is worthless, because it is trivially easy to fake. Costly signaling shows up in the gifts we give to one another, particularly during courtship. Miller asks, rhetorically, "Why should a man give a woman a useless diamond, when he could buy her a nice big potato, which she could at least eat?" His answer is that the expense and uselessness of the gift is its very point. A diamond is understood as a sign of love in a way a potato isn't, because most people would only give on to someone they care about, and so the giving signal some combination of wealth and commitment.
https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/1046891043839344641
A lot of guys love to say that college is a scam, but as far as scams go, I'd say that spending an average of:
- $25,764 for a wedding
- $6,163 on an engagement ring Is neck and neck with it.
- $25,764 for a wedding
- $6,163 on an engagement ring Is neck and neck with it.
Tbh, I'd love for someone to do a study on cost of ring/wedding vs divorce %, to see if there is a correlation between the signalling and behavior. My tentative hypothesis would be that the divorce rate is higher where the cost is higher, since they can afford to get divorced.
https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Marriage-Evolutionary-Cross-Cultural-View/dp/1498541240
"marriage duration is inversely associated with spending on the engagement ring and wedding ceremony...compared with spending $5,000-$10,000 on a wedding, spending less than $1,000 is associated with half the hazard of divorce" onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111
https://twitter.com/David_S_Wilson/status/1161543618202611714
(MARRIAGE DIDN'T EXIST FOR MOST OF HUMAN EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY AND ONCE THE CULTURAL CONVENTION WAS INVENTED IT SERVED SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PURPOSES AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH LOVE!)
Perhaps marriage is the most obvious institutional example of the achievement of personal happiness today. Yet the role of love in marriage is a relatively new occurrence. Historian Stephanie Coontz states that marriage grew out of convenience to document legitimacy of offspring, obtain the most powerful in-laws to make family alliances, and expand the family labor workforce. After all, even today in some societies, marriages are still arranged by the matchmaker. As Tevye remarks on life in 1905 Russia in the Broadway production of Fiddler on the Roof (1964): "Love? That's a new fashion." Marriage today isn't even about marriage but the wedding. When girls envision marriage from a younger age, they think about the big day. The ring and the dress. The stress of seating charts and picking up the right photographer. The bridesmaids, the DJ, the hot chafing dishes, and the open bar. That's marketing designed for your dopamine system, not serotonin, and not even necessarily directed at the bride. Not enough thought is given to what happens after the credit cards are maxed out and the flowers that match the dresses have wilted. The rock? That's the reward for the effort, not the long-term happiness. (The Hacking of the American Mind)
"MADD At ME Cuz Imma Marry Ma Chrome!" -Fikarelli!
"Om Tha Typa Nigga That'll Never Have A Wedding Ring!" - Fikarelli's Friend!
"Marry A Virgin...Married For Money!" - Silky Slim Tha MothaFuccin' P Mane!
"Cuz Imma Marry Ma Self" - F.L.I.P.
"Don't Need No Batch For No Matrimony" -Cellskini!
I'M KEEPING MY TESTOSTERONE LEVEL HIGH BECAUSE IT'S G00D FOR MY HEALTH! AND HOW AM I KEEPING IT HIGH? BY NOT MARRYING, NOT BEING MONOGAMOUS (HAVING MULTIPLE MATES), AND NOT HAVING CHILDREN AND THEREFORE NOT HAVING TO REAR CHILDREN ALL OF WHICH LOWERS TESTOSTERONE!
https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1334551693040758784
I've argued that there's no such thing as free will. So, what is there? There's luck, both G00D and bad, as well as what we make of it. Actually, that's not quite true. What you make of your luck is also just more luck. Once again, you didn't pick your parents, you didn't pick the society in which you were born. There's not a cell in your body or brain that you created, nor is there a single influence coming from the outside world that brought into being and yet everything you think and do arise from this ocean of prior causes. So, what you do with your luck and the tools with which you do it even down to the level of the effort and the discipline you manage to summon in each moment is more in the way of luck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yTjufkiPzU
3:15
"There Could Have Been, Uh, Smarter Offspring, Hansomer, More Athletic, Better In Every Way; Ones That Just Didn't Make It." - Better Than You!
http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/The-God-Part-of-the-Brain_Alper.pdf
BUT RANDOM CHANCE AND CIRCUMSTANCES I'VE HAD NO CONTROL OVER THROUGHOUT MY LIFE HAVE PREVENTED ME FROM REALIZING MY GENETIC POTENTIAL AND PROVING TO YOU ALL ON A WORLD STAGE THAT I'M BETTER THAN YOU ALL! IN OTHER WORDS, I'M NOT LIVING THE WAY I SHOULD BE LIVING CONSIDERING MY GENETIC CONSTITUTION AND SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUND. READ PAGES 179-182 IN CHAPTER 14 IN THE LINK ABOVE (WHY ARE THERE ATHEISTS) TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
I'M “the guy who whistles really well while toiling the field” BUT IN RELATION TO BASKETBALL AND EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY.
"OLE PUSSY ASS NIGGA N0 LUCK WIT HIM!" - JOE
https://michaelshermer.com/2017/11/what-is-the-secret-of-success/
https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/967312466274373633
All It Takes Is A Little Serendipity, Folkz!
IMAGINE IF I'D BECOME THE BASKETBALL PLAYER I WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN IN HIGH SCHOOL (I WAS THE STANDOUT PLAYER GROWING UP, BUT BECAUSE OF PERSONALITY PROBLEMS AND THE FACT THAT I ATTENDED TOO MANY HIGH SCHOOLS I NEVER BECAME THE STANDOUT HIGH SCHOOL PLAYER THAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE). I WOULD HAVE PLAYED COLLEGE BASKETBALL AT THE DIVISION I OR DIVISION II LEVEL AND I'D NOW BE A COACH OR RECRUITER AT THE COLLEGIATE LEVEL. IMAGINE IF I'D TAKEN COLLEGE SERIOUSLY (IF I WAS SERIOUS ABOUT MY STUDIES, RATHER THAN CRAMMING TO PASS CLASSES). I'D BE IN THE ACADEMIC FIELD AND I WOULD HAVE REACHED MY INTELLECTUAL POTENTIAL!
(MARRIAGE DIDN'T EXIST FOR MOST OF HUMAN EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY AND ONCE THE CULTURAL CONVENTION WAS INVENTED IT SERVED SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PURPOSES AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH LOVE!)
Perhaps marriage is the most obvious institutional example of the achievement of personal happiness today. Yet the role of love in marriage is a relatively new occurrence. Historian Stephanie Coontz states that marriage grew out of convenience to document legitimacy of offspring, obtain the most powerful in-laws to make family alliances, and expand the family labor workforce. After all, even today in some societies, marriages are still arranged by the matchmaker. As Tevye remarks on life in 1905 Russia in the Broadway production of Fiddler on the Roof (1964): "Love? That's a new fashion." Marriage today isn't even about marriage but the wedding. When girls envision marriage from a younger age, they think about the big day. The ring and the dress. The stress of seating charts and picking up the right photographer. The bridesmaids, the DJ, the hot chafing dishes, and the open bar. That's marketing designed for your dopamine system, not serotonin, and not even necessarily directed at the bride. Not enough thought is given to what happens after the credit cards are maxed out and the flowers that match the dresses have wilted. The rock? That's the reward for the effort, not the long-term happiness. (The Hacking of the American Mind)
"MADD At ME Cuz Imma Marry Ma Chrome!" -Fikarelli!
"Om Tha Typa Nigga That'll Never Have A Wedding Ring!" - Fikarelli's Friend!
"Marry A Virgin...Married For Money!" - Silky Slim Tha MothaFuccin' P Mane!
"Cuz Imma Marry Ma Self" - F.L.I.P.
"Don't Need No Batch For No Matrimony" -Cellskini!
The kind of besottedness that we associate with romantic love can be both intense and, compared to mate attraction in most other animals, relatively long-lasting. This early intense phase of a human relationship typically lasts twelve to eighteen months, but can often extend for several years beyond that in attenuated form. In the heady intellectualised aftermath of the 1960s, it became fashionable among intellectuals, and especially among anthropologists, to assert that this sense of falling in love is a peculiarity of modern, Western capitalist culture, driven no doubt by the market in Mills & Boon-style romantic fiction. In traditional societies, people did not marry for love, but as a matter of economic convenience or for political reasons. It is still a common view. But this is to confuse the reasons for marriage contracts with the relationship involved. People have always been hard-nosed and married for political or economic convenience. Arranged marriages have been a feature of every human culture the world over. Currently, they happen to be especially common throughout much of South Asia, from Iraq as far east as Japan, but they were the bread and meat of the noble houses of Europe ever since the Romans left us alone to get on with our lives as best we could. People still marry for convenience and economic advantage every day all over the Western world. But that doesn't mean to say that people don't fall in love. Whether they marry because they fall in love is a separate issue. In actual fact, the falling in love bit can happen just as often the other way way around: people get married for strategic reasons and then, lo and behold, fall in love. As Moliere put it in his play Sganarelle (1660): 'Love is often a fruit of marriage.' (The Science of Love)
...
At the end of his book The Symbolic Species, the neuroanatomist Terry Deacon observed that humans have very unusual pairbonds that are set within a large social community in which many males and females live together. This would be fine, but for what has become known among anthropologists as the 'division of labour': from time to time, men and women go their separate ways, especially in traditional societies where males go hunting and females gather vegetable foods. The problem, as Deacon saw it, is that whenever a mated pair are apart, they are at risk of rivals who might either steal the mate or effect extra-pair copulations. This is a particular problem for males. Males are always vulnerable to paternity uncertainty: among mammals, a female always knows that the offspring she gives birth to are hers, but a male can never be 100 per cent certain. Deacon argued that humans face this problem in a particularly intrusive way. We are always surrounded by many rivals for the attentions of our romantic partner, and they have open season when the division of labour obliges one or other sex to leave their mates for long periods of time (e.g. while away hunting).
The solution, Deacon suggested, was overt social statements of ownership such as marriage ceremonies and symbolic badges. To signal marital status, we use a whole raft of purely symbolic markers, not least among which is the wearing of wedding rings. In many cultures, women also adopt a whole host of additional practices such as using titles like 'Mrs', adopting the husband's surname, and changes in style of dress or coiffure. In traditional Polynesia, a couple marked their marriage by placing leis (traditional flower necklaces) around each other's necks, and women switched from wearing a flower behind the right ear (meaning Still available) to wearing it behind the left (meaning Spoken for). Deacon argued that, being symbolic, these all require language, and he thus saw symbolic contracts of this kind as being the key selection pressure behind the evolution of language - hence the title of his book...(The Science of Love)
What if you are actually measuring hormones, like say testosterone? Surely, the manner in which male T levels decline as men age, after marriage and with fatherhood, are features of the species? This is "biology", after all
While more research is needed, the evidence suggests that these patterns are due to WEIRD normative monogamous marriage and male childcare. Traditionally, 85% of societies have been polygynous and many had little male childcare. The same T declines don't appear.
I'M KEEPING MY TESTOSTERONE LEVEL HIGH BECAUSE IT'S G00D FOR MY HEALTH! AND HOW AM I KEEPING IT HIGH? BY NOT MARRYING, NOT BEING MONOGAMOUS (HAVING MULTIPLE MATES), AND NOT HAVING CHILDREN AND THEREFORE NOT HAVING TO REAR CHILDREN ALL OF WHICH LOWERS TESTOSTERONE!
https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1334551693040758784
"T levels plummeted among men who both got married and had children, while they declined the least among those who remained single. Notably the men who were initially highest in testosterone were also the most likely to get married" amzn.to/3fZuMWl
There would seem to be a market opportunity for a product that enables hetero women and gay men to surreptitiously (or openly) track their male partner's testosterone level as a proxy for their relationship commitment.
"Multiple studies show that men who are romantically involved (i.e., are paired) have lower testosterone than single men...Men in relationships but who nonetheless are interested in new sexual encounters maintain high testosterone despite being paired"
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17014290
A better understanding of fatherhood and aging requires us to dust off our anthropologist hats and venture to societies that are not Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic, or WEIRD, as evolutionary psychologist Joseph Henrich has dubbed us.
Demographers often assumed that men generally stopped reproducing around the age of fifty, which coincides with women experiencing menopause. Assuming that most humans, or at least those that are WEIRD, are monogamous, this is a reasonable assumption. The problem with this idea is that many members of our species are not WEIRD, and it is likely that those in our evolutionary past may not have been so devoted to having a single mate.
This includes both males and females, but for now we’re keeping our Darwinian gaze on the men. Evolutionary demographer Shripad “Tulja” Tuljapurkar and colleagues analyzed male fertility in several non-WEIRD societies and found that fatherhood at older ages, say after the age of fifty, was not only evident, but more commonplace compared to WEIRD societies. Therefore one can make the assumption that fatherhood at older ages was likely common in our evolutionary past and that older fathers contributed to the emergence of traits that define us as a species.
The emergence of fatherhood at older ages provides an explanation for the long period of post-reproductive life in women and humans in general. The lifespan of most organisms usually coincides with the loss of their ability to reproduce. In women, that is around the age of fifty with the onset of menopause. However, in humans, almost a third of our lifespan is post-menopausal, which is very unusual regardless of whether you’re WEIRD or not. If men were able to reproduce at older ages, a trait that is very uncommon among primates and animals in general, this may have selected for longevity genes that were passed to both sons and daughters. In other words, older fathers may have contributed to the evolution of long lives in humans. Thank you, Mick and Ronnie.
"Multiple studies show that men who are romantically involved (i.e., are paired) have lower testosterone than single men...Men in relationships but who nonetheless are interested in new sexual encounters maintain high testosterone despite being paired"
Sam Harris on the Illusion of Free Will
I've argued that there's no such thing as free will. So, what is there? There's luck, both G00D and bad, as well as what we make of it. Actually, that's not quite true. What you make of your luck is also just more luck. Once again, you didn't pick your parents, you didn't pick the society in which you were born. There's not a cell in your body or brain that you created, nor is there a single influence coming from the outside world that brought into being and yet everything you think and do arise from this ocean of prior causes. So, what you do with your luck and the tools with which you do it even down to the level of the effort and the discipline you manage to summon in each moment is more in the way of luck.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yTjufkiPzU
3:15
"There Could Have Been, Uh, Smarter Offspring, Hansomer, More Athletic, Better In Every Way; Ones That Just Didn't Make It." - Better Than You!
http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/The-God-Part-of-the-Brain_Alper.pdf
BUT RANDOM CHANCE AND CIRCUMSTANCES I'VE HAD NO CONTROL OVER THROUGHOUT MY LIFE HAVE PREVENTED ME FROM REALIZING MY GENETIC POTENTIAL AND PROVING TO YOU ALL ON A WORLD STAGE THAT I'M BETTER THAN YOU ALL! IN OTHER WORDS, I'M NOT LIVING THE WAY I SHOULD BE LIVING CONSIDERING MY GENETIC CONSTITUTION AND SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUND. READ PAGES 179-182 IN CHAPTER 14 IN THE LINK ABOVE (WHY ARE THERE ATHEISTS) TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
I'M “the guy who whistles really well while toiling the field” BUT IN RELATION TO BASKETBALL AND EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY.
"OLE PUSSY ASS NIGGA N0 LUCK WIT HIM!" - JOE
https://michaelshermer.com/2017/11/what-is-the-secret-of-success/
- The luck of being born in the first place—the ratio of how many people could have been born to those who actually were—is incalculably large, not to mention the luck of being born in a Western country with a stable political system, a sound economy and a solid infrastructure (roads and bridges) rather than, say, in a lower caste in India, or in war-torn Syria, or anarchic Somalia.
- The luck of having loving and nurturing parents who raised you in a safe neighborhood and healthy environment, provided you with a high-quality K–12 education and instilled in you the values of personal responsibility. If they were financially successful, that’s an added bonus because a key predictor of someone’s earning power is that of their parents.
- The luck of attending a college where you happened on good or inspiring professors or mentors who guided you to your calling, along with a strong peer cohort to challenge and support you, followed by finding a good-paying job or fulfilling career that matches your education, talents and interests.
- The luck of being born at a time in history when your particular aptitudes and passions fit that of the zeitgeist. Would Google’s co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin be among the richest and most successful people in the world had they been born in 1873 instead of 1973? Both are brilliant and hardworking, so they would probably have been successful in any century—but at the equivalent of nearly $45 billion each? It seems unlikely.
Luck is all you need: Paper argues that common thinking and performance statistics belittle the weight of randomness in life success. https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068
All It Takes Is A Little Serendipity, Folkz!
IMAGINE IF I'D BECOME THE BASKETBALL PLAYER I WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN IN HIGH SCHOOL (I WAS THE STANDOUT PLAYER GROWING UP, BUT BECAUSE OF PERSONALITY PROBLEMS AND THE FACT THAT I ATTENDED TOO MANY HIGH SCHOOLS I NEVER BECAME THE STANDOUT HIGH SCHOOL PLAYER THAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE). I WOULD HAVE PLAYED COLLEGE BASKETBALL AT THE DIVISION I OR DIVISION II LEVEL AND I'D NOW BE A COACH OR RECRUITER AT THE COLLEGIATE LEVEL. IMAGINE IF I'D TAKEN COLLEGE SERIOUSLY (IF I WAS SERIOUS ABOUT MY STUDIES, RATHER THAN CRAMMING TO PASS CLASSES). I'D BE IN THE ACADEMIC FIELD AND I WOULD HAVE REACHED MY INTELLECTUAL POTENTIAL!
"DON'T BE THAT GUY!"
Some people's main purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.
And their numbers increase daily.
WARNING!
