[NOTE FROM PUMPKIN PERSON, March 8, 2017: The following is a guest post by commenter Afrosapiens. Afrosapiens wanted to respond to one of my most controversial blog posts, Women have a genetic need to be dominated and men have a genetic need to dominate. The views expressed below belong to Afrosapiens and do not necessarily reflect those of Pumpkin Person. I decided not to edit Afrosapien’s post, but I did remove a few parts for brevity and accuracy which explain the occasional ellipses. To learn more about Afrosapiens, the author of the following guest post, see here]
…intimate relationships really are my forte, no bragging here, thinking about it brought back lots of memories and had my fiancée and I going into deep talk about our relationship, our past romances and those of the people we know.
Don’t worry, I’m not going to play Dr. AfroLove, this is or this used to be an HBD blog so I’m going to explore the notion of dominance while formulating short evolutionary hypotheses that I won’t back with scholary references, I just don’t have the time and the risk of confirmation bias is just too strong. The reader must also be aware that this post is entirely subjective, it is a work of a narcissistic guy who sees himself as perfection made man. So don’t be surprised if the definition of a dominant male amazingly looks like a description of himself.
I’ll articulate my essay in two main points. I’ll first try to demonstrate how and why most women are attracted to socially dominant men by exploring the three main aspects of it: competitiveness, risk taking and challenge taking. In a second part, I’ll explain how a man’s social standing determines his ability to dominate his lady in the private sphere by exploring three relevant factors which are possessiveness, control and of course, sexual dominance (I’ll try not to be too graphic).
I-SOCIAL DOMINANCE
In this essay, social dominance is not understood as class or race hierarchy, it only includes dominance within each person’s own social network. The best examples of social dynamics at play are found in high school and college times, not because of nostalgia but because secondary and post-secondary institutions randomly select individuals representing the full spectrum of variation in personality and who are on top of that undergoing the peak of hormonal activity of the late teens and early twenties. The age of competitiveness, risk and challenge taking.
1-COMPETITIVENESS
One of the most acknowledged masculine trait is competitiveness, although it is best expressed in sports, boys hate to lose every time they face confrontational situations, even the most trivial ones. On the other hand, girls tend to care much less, and get no shaming for losing. As far as attraction, it is pretty clear that girls prefer winners over losers whereas most men are intimidated by too confident women. It is also obvious that there are winner physiques (jocks and bimbos) and loser physiques (nerds and neurotic bookworms).
As expected, it’s most likely the jocks who attract the bimbos and are confident in their ability to handle them. Winner physiques often command respect by their impressiveness that screams “don’t f**k with me” but a joyful, attractive person that carries a cool aura can be just as dominant by being so popular that getting in trouble with them would be mere social suicide.
When natural charisma is not enough to assert dominance, men retort to threatening behavior and violence. But most often, dominance signaling is expressed in playful situations such as playing sports, pool table, drinking games et caetra. The many girls that I met told me they found nothing sexier than watching men playing ball or strength games and that the winners often aroused non-platonic effects on them. But when the confrontation goes from playful to conflictual, women more than men have the ability to ease the situation and be excellent mediators, hence their superior verbal and emotional abilities.
All of the above makes sense evolutionary wise, of course or bodies were naturally selected for hunting efficiency. But sexual selection probably played a major role with females falling for the men who demonstrated optimal athletic ability and as result, better meat acquisition potential. This likely at least explains in part the evolution of mankind from barely bipedal apes to Usain Bolt, eradicating the inefficient brutish Neanderthals. Heuristically, we can still observe that thousands of years after our survival stopped depending on hunting and gathering, people are still crazy over sports, whether as players or spectators. Another anecdotal confirmation of this hypothesis comes from my past in modeling when I was told that my sprinter morphology represented the ideal body type for underwear shootings.
2-RISK-TAKING
Aside from competition, one other mean to assert domination is taking risks. Some call it sensation-seeking, assuming that people take risks for personal reasons. In my opinion, there is a lot of dominance signaling in risk taking and it’s even more true that people (mostly men) often need an audience to do bad ass things whereas they would have played it safe if alone. By taking risks, you’re telling 1) I’m stronger than danger, death, law… 2) I dare you to do like me, if you’re a real man. In this domain, women keep a very low profile. In fact, they are absolutely not supposed to take risks, they are supposed to care for the children and partner and to be pacifying forces in the community.
I am personally very obedient when I have direct contact with authority. But when I’m left “unsupervised” with peer pressure on top of that, I get indescribable satisfaction from challenging the laws of the State and nature, of course I don’t do life threatening things nor do I take the risk of ending up in jail. But throwing food on pedestrians from a balcony (when intoxicated), tumbling as a goal celebration, jumping from a freakingly high cliff into the sea, racing on the highway or climbing rocks and trees are things that I enjoy. And I do not do just for the thrill of it. Although I know my mamma hates it, I know my lil’ mamma loves it like “damn Afro, you’re hero, and it’s sooo hot” and my male friends will obviously take the challenge or they are pussies.
Taking risks has been crucial for evolution as there is simply no progress in safety. Humans would probably never have left the East African steppe if none of them had been daring enough to cross rivers and mountains, try new plants, new insects, hunt new game… In fact, there is no evidence that early human migrations were triggered by survival pressures and there is one restlessness genetic allele that has been found in higher proportion among new world natives and nomadic peoples.
Nowadays in our man-made, successful risk-takers often get unanimous admiration and even though failure generates contempt or laughter, but a wise person will always say “at least he tried” which is still better than being a f*aggot who stays in his safe zone. This is the Olympic spirit.
3-CHALLENGE-TAKING
The last notion that I want to discuss is challenge taking. In this sub-section, it takes a slightly different meaning than in the two previous ones as it deals with setting personal challenges. I’m talking about the very manly mindset of being ambitious, wanting to make the impossible possible. Of course, women do have ambition but it never reaches the megalomaniac levels seen in men. Also, ambitious women scare men because social ambition distract them from their traditional household duties.
I used the phrase challenge taking instead of ambition because this tendency is expressed in very trivial situations and not just big lifelong schemes. Repairing your girlfriend’s pearl necklace is an instance of making the impossible possible, fixing things around the house as well. In hunting and gathering times, elaborating new tools, better shelter, painting buffaloes in caves were instances of making the impossible possible. All these apparently trivial advances were the precursors of art and technology.
I guess many of you guys will assume that the man at the apex of the evolution is the guy doing silly statistics on his wheelchair. I don’t think so. This man is still the handyman, craftsman or artist, these men turn women on and generate admiration, math geniuses ? Not so much… Why ? Because people just don’t see the actual concrete point of working out extremely complex problems, it is boring and unnecessary for survival. Moreover real math geniuses are rare, most people who are good at maths are just good at using calculators. Now if you indeed believe that you are at the apex of evolution because you’re a nerd, well don’t wonder why you’re not at the apex of your couple or of the sexual market.
II-PRIVATE SPHERE
No, humans aren’t nerdy apes, they are athletic and playful Mr. Fixit. And whether you are indeed a nerdy ape or an athletic playful Mr. Fixit will determine how your girl will rate you. For your girl to let you dominate your relationship, she needs to admire you, you have to be her hero, the one who beats up the other guys, who’s afraid of nothing and makes miracles happen. If your girl has little admiration for you, if she finds you lame and useless, she will express it by invading your natural territories which are possessiveness/jealousy, control and sexual dominance.
1-POSSESSIVENESS
When we think about possessiveness or jealousy, what comes to our minds is the hysterical crises that our chicks went into after coming across an explicit picture or message that we didn’t have the time to erase or even see before she cracked our cellphone codes. Well, that’s impressive, sexy, funny or whatever way you react to that kind of drama. But believe me, girls forgive and forget… If you’re the man in the house.
It’s no surprise that polygyny is a much more sustainable model of society than the opposite. I’ll ask all the feminist readers to skip this part but here’s the truth, your chick(s) is/are your property and you have to let them know, and let the other guys know too. Even if you trust your girl, you have to set limits to what is an acceptable behavior or dress as well as dissuading the other guys of having misplaced intentions, for the sole sake of respect. I’m not talking about buying her hijabs nor even imposing her a strict and modest dress code, there are just limits that vary from culture to culture. If your girl loves and respects you, she will accept your rules, if she doesn’t, man up (show her you’re worth it) or dump her.
On the other hand, you’re not really supposed to tell her what you’re doing and who you’re seeing. And she won’t ask if she doesn’t think it’s worth losing the best man on earth arguing over some side business. Actually, many girls are turned on by knowing that their man is desired and so sexually competent that he exports surpluses outside the home. Men did not evolve to be monogamous, think of Genghis Khan’s or some African Chief’s and merchant’s hundreds of children, the Turkish harems, the Concubines of China’s nobility or les Liaisons Dangereuses à la Cour de France. It’s only the best men that keep the girls and spread their genes.
At the same time, no society can be stable if men are just waging a sex war for the conquest of women. In addition to that, and this will be my last word for this part: fidelity and commitment is the most precious gift you can make to your lady, so put a ring on it dudes.
2-CONTROL
Everybody knows the hardest part of a relationship is to make it work, make concessions, try to accommodate each partner to enjoy the shared feelings as much as possible. And the final aim of this struggle is to gain control over your partner so that they become perfection to you. This goal, in my opinion, should never be achieved, it would literally kill the fun of arguing over small and not so small things.
We can easily measure who dominates a relationship by seeing who’s making more concessions and who’s deciding things in the household. Of course, it’s never sane when one has complete authority over the other like in a parent-child relationship. Also, I doubt we can talk about love when both partners don’t care about what the other does, that’s just ok for fuckbuddies. There must be a balance that has to favor the male, if he has balls.
In that matter, I’ve had varied experiences, especially one which was with an older (married) woman. Well, it was special, I was basically just her pretty little thing ready to do whatever to please her, I stuck around because we had amazing sex and she sort of cast a weird spell on me. but I was actually burning inside, feeling completely emasculated, it had never happened to me before and I made a promise to myself that it never had to happen afterwards. I do better with young girls.
Now the question is, how to assert dominance in the war for control ? You think of violence ? We’ll get back to it later on. The best way to gain control over your relationship is to have these “I don’t take you seriously” or “you’re just looking for attention” attitudes that I got on lock. This how you get away with senseless drama with some “you got it going on tonight”, “alright, let me give you a kiss”, “come into my arms baby” or simply a smile of amazement and incredulity that says “naaah, you just can’t seriously hold that against me” and “I’m not arguing over something so stupid”. And most often, you “win” an argument just like that because your girl has much consideration for you and you make her feel silly. But sometimes it doesn’t, and that’s when it gets serious.
Yelling, saying things that none of us mean, slamming doors, breaking things… It can become really infernal. Be the smartest and concede when you think it’s going too far, you’re not losing. Violence is an attribute of manhood that is meant to be used on other men, not women, not the one who carries your progeny and keeps your home clean. Moreover, I don’t know how women could be attracted to strength if it was meant to be directed against them. But you have to remind her that you have this option.
Hitting walls, doors and furniture or breaking things is silly, instead, destroy the punching bag like it raped your mother. Acknowledging that you backed down, your girl will normally come to you, feeling sorry for taking things this far and she’ll also notice all the chaos that your strength is able to provoke. And… And… The sight of you sweaty with bulging veins everywhere might actually turn her on, and if you’re like me, all that madness might have aroused something in you too. That’s how we get to the last point, sexual dominance.
3-SEXUAL DOMINANCE
Alright, let’s try to keep it safe for work for that last part. I know people have an infinite variety of turn ons when it comes to intimacy and I just can’t tell who’s into what by the way they carry themselves in life. There is one thing I know for sure though: the bed, or wherever you like to do it, is the ultimate place where you can achieve complete dominance over your lady, and that’s what the majority of women expect you to do, or at least those who let me visit their inner parts. Yes, even the nasty MILF wanted to be my thing once we went horizontal.
Honestly, I just don’t know what a guy can enjoy in having his lady doing the job. Being waken up kindly on a Sunday morning by your girl waiting for you to take charge once you’re out of the haze is definitely exciting, but following the orders of a mean dominatrix must be a sign of derangement. Anyway, what a man has to do is to take charge, being all over and all inside, triggering insane sensations, moving her like a doll. That’s how you’re a bedroom hero and women are just as addicted to good sex as men are. Also, and I might cross a limit, but many women fantasize about being raped. None ever told me that obviously but it’s some sort of urban legend and I noticed that the angrier I am, the better they like it. If that legend is true, you perfectly fulfill that desire by being rough and caring about her pleasure at the same time.
Beyond the carnal aspect of sexual dominance, being a beast in the bed is just another way to make her feel your strength and how small she is under you. It relieves frustrations, strengthen the bond and the pleasure you gave to her might even get her to reconsider her position on something you’ve been quarrelling about some time before. Also, I think it’s good to talk after sex. Unless you’re intoxicated saying “goodnight” or “I’m going out” once it’s over is not just rude, it’s a missed opportunity to discuss whatever comes to your mind at that very moment when the two of you feel like one.
CONCLUSION
…I won’t be systematic to the point of saying that all males are genetically inclined to dominate and that all women have to be submissive. However, as androgenes make men taller than women on average, they also make them more dominant on average. They give us the physique, the voice and the mindset. But since there is a large degree of overlapping, a minority of males will be submissive whereas a minority of women will be dominant.
I don’t know how biased this essay is, it’s personal, I grew up in a macho country (France) and evolved in macho social circles and institutions (nobility, military school, Catholic Church, Grandes Écoles, law and business) so many of my views can sound very archaic, or even prehistoric. Whatever you think about it, I’m waiting on you to storm the comments section with scholary references and alternative hypotheses…
Pumpkin Person 
Jesus, why don’t we just go straight to the chase and get fuckin Oprah to guest blog about The Secret.
Who wrote this garbage? Usually the articles here are so intelligent and analytical. No more guest bloggers please, unless they have an IQ above 90.
I wrote this garbage. Can you please elaborate ?
Thank you but try to be more open minded about guest bloggers. I try to give a voice to the type of people that my brilliant readers would never choose to meet in real life, but who nonetheless have so much to teach us about what it means to be human. Wisdom can come from the most unlikely of sources.
Pardon me sir ?
What makes your readers too brilliant to enjoy my company ?
You talk about respecting guest posters and then lowkey say that I’m some sort of inferior being ? We’ve had the same conversation a couple of days ago, don’t wanna say the same things over and over but who are you to judge me ? How are you better than me ?
Oh Afro, i love your innocence.
WTF ???? How am I innocent ? Uhhh ! This is the most scandalous thing that I’ve been told in a while.
How am I innocent ?
The question is the answer.
I hope this Afrosapiens doesn’t become a regular guest blogger. No offense to him but my husband and I have been reading this blog for over a year and love all the great insights. We’d hate to see the quality decline.
I love criticism, but I don’t like vagueness. What don’t you like ?
Hey, why u hatin, is u raciss??
This comment is creepy. If you make the effort to picture this couple reading this blog together, it really looks uncanny. I personally imagine 2 tall scrawny tensed creepy looking nerds sitting (with their back straight) on their chairs in front their computer screen.
They are never commenting on this blog, simply reading carefully (and enjoying the great insights), but when (sacrilège!) this (disgusting) Afrosapiens dared sully this high class blog with his lowbrow interests & his crude writing style, they instantly became hopping mad and remind (in record time) PP why they (the very important readers, like Stanley & Mar$ha, who you rarely see because they are so busy doing important things) are reading him.
Speaking of people we rarely see, where have you been. I finally bought that tape measure you were asking me to buy.
I was in moderation. What results did you get ?
57.79
How great this is compared to the average white male ?
Is this below or above average ? (I guess it’s above average otherwise you wouldn’t have shared this)
Can you convert this value into an IQ equivalent where the average for white males is 100 ?
First tell us yours. It’s only fair.
I don’t know it, I wore XL helmet when I was in high school, it’s approximately 61-62 cm from what I saw on the Internet.
This article I wrote has stats on the head circumference of U.S. men:
I’ll do this later. How much should I take off to control for my hair?
The HC stats I use are from the army where male hair tends to be short, so it’s probably not worth doing if your hair is thick for a guy.
Based on head circumference only your IQ should be around 109 (RR’s IQ) & mine around 144.
What’s Oprah’s head circumference ?
That’s if there were a perfect correlation between IQ & HC. RR’s IQ equivalents range from 66 to 108. We’re waiting for him to take the WAIS so we can get the definitive number.
Better to call it BSQ
Brain Size Quotient
Dude, an achievement test where I literally was taught nothing on the test is not a good measure of my cognitive ability.
I know but at least it’s a reputable test. We don’t even know the name of the test you scored 108 on.
my head circumference is 24.5 inches (62.2cm)
In the US my hat size was XXL
Today i spoke to my doctor about an IQ test and he laughed calling them ” Silly American things”
I think there is a cultural hostility towards IQ amongst upper-middle class northern Europeans.
My doctor went to Westminster School.
What he said confirms my previous observation that only losers are part of the HBD cult.
Your head is 24″ not 24.5″
No my head is 24.5 inches.
i mentioned it here
the things jimmy doesn’t know.
in the uk jimmy wouldn’t have gotten in to a decent school. admission is based exclusively on test scores.
thus the british elite is much smarter than the american elite. it’s also much less pushy, obedient, and striverish like jimmy.
what jimmy’s pretend doctor doesn’t know…
a-levels are IQ tests. and they’re a lot better measures of intelligence from a psychometric pov.
peepee-tard will claim:
1. they’re achievement tests and soi-disant IQ tests aren’t.
2. they’re more culturally loaded than IQ tests.
2. IQ tests test more factors than a-levels.
all three of these claims are FALSE.
” in the uk jimmy wouldn’t have gotten in to a decent school. admission is based exclusively on test scores. ”
Its much harder to get into Berkeley than it is to get into Oxford.
100,000 undergraduate applicants to Berkeley
http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/01/11/more-than-100000-students-seek-admission-to-berkeley/
11,603 undergrad applicants to Oxford
https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures?wssl=1
the much greater competition for Berkeley places has always been the case.
I have worked with people who went to Oxbridge and i didnt find any of them to be impressive in terms of skills.
Americans always out earn brits when it comes to salary and performance bonuses.
Even British companies pay Americans more .
When i was at BP i went out for drinks with colleagues and when we talked about pay the limeys went red when they found out that BP pays americans more.
as for your crying about test scores , get over it son.
HIGH SAT + LOW GPA = ADHD Steinberg
HIGH SAT + HIGH GPA = WASP superiority .
I am not responsible for your failures in life .
No one screwed you .
you knew the rules of the game and you blew it.
Now you’re barely making rent money working in food distribution.
if your parents cared about you then they would have got you a prescription for Adderall
” a-levels are IQ tests.”
Wrong again. A-levels are pure subject tests.
Here is a question form hardest math paper (C4) from the 2015 edexcel paper.
pure subject test.
Anyone with a 100 IQ can get an A* in A-level math . Thats why so many dot heads do better than the native whites.
Learn before you say silly things.
Oh and dont forget the Adderall
you really have no clue as to how pathetically lower class you sound.
sad!
you knew the rules of the game and you blew it.
that’s the whole point hymie. i knew the rules were retarded, and i didn’t obey. i didn’t blow it, unlike you. all of the oxbridge people you’ve met would outscore you on an IQ test and by a lot. ucb is 75% non-white in a state which is 45% white. it’s a joke.
Now you’re barely making rent money working in food distribution.
more lies from hymie.
sad!
do you even know what industrial distribution is? of course not, you work in a parasitic business. it has absolutely nothing to do with food. my company is fortune 500 hymie. it’s the second largest industrial distributor in the US, and i know more about banking than you do.
peepee. you’re going to have to redact the lies or simply block the liars. capiche?
subject tests and IQ tests test the same thing, and one must have several a-levels, several different subjects.
the point is hymie YOU would not be able to do this to the level oxbridge requires.
you are dumb.
“Its much harder to get into Berkeley than it is to get into Oxford.”
Yes. And it’s a lot harder to become a millionaire via prostitution than medical science.
Jimmy must value the former more. Obviously.
” that’s the whole point hymie. i knew the rules were retarded, and i didn’t obey. ”
so you admit that you’re not capable of delaying gratification.
All you had to do was play by the rules for 4 years and then reap the financial rewards.
you couldn’t do it
it must be genetic.
” Subject tests and IQ tests test the same thing, and one must have several a-levels, several different subjects. ”
go on Amazon and check out GCSE Chemsitry CGP study guide. its 84 pages !
now compare that with any AP chemistry study guide.
GCSE and A-level is just memorization and regurgitation.
all of the oxbridge people you’ve met would outscore you
Oxbridge admission is much less meritocratic than the US. For example, 44% of Westminster School students were accepted by Oxbridge.
There is not a single prep school in all of America that has anything even close to that for Harvard.
you wouldn’t know that because you have never been outside the US.
the other factor is that all applicants must attend an interview which strongly favors the children of privilege.
Anyone who has ever had any professional experience with those people will know that Oxbridge grads are second rate.
The grads from Imperial college london are the real deal.
You don’t know any of this because you don’t mix in those circles.
” do you even know what industrial distribution is? ”
you organize the transportation of food to wendys. That’s hardly what i would call a job.
Instead of trying to impress me with fortune 500 this and 2nd largest company that, why don’t we compare payslips?.
Post a pic of yours and i’ll post a pic of mine.
i’m sure you’ve heard that before.
Oxbridge admission is much less meritocratic than the US. For example, 44% of Westminster School students were accepted by Oxbridge.
One would have to be amazingly stupid to think % admitted = “how meritocratic something is.”
exhibit A.
Instead of trying to impress me with fortune 500 this and 2nd largest company that, why don’t we compare payslips?.
Post a pic of yours and i’ll post a pic of mine.
i’m sure you’ve heard that before.
The irony is both palpable and going over your head.
Jimmy must be a midget.
Oxbridge admission is much less meritocratic than the US.
the oppiste of the case.
For example, 44% of Westminster School students were accepted by Oxbridge.
not an example. and i knew that. it has the highest acceptance rate of any school.
but do you know whay it isn’t an example hymie?
i will explain below.
you wouldn’t know that because you have never been outside the US…you organize the transportation of food to wendys.
do you read hymie’s lies before you poast them peepee?
why don’t we compare payslips?
again hymie. you have no clue as to how lower class you sound.
the other factor is that all applicants must attend an interview which strongly favors the children of privilege.
FALSE. some courses have an interview. others do not. the only one i know does is medicine.
imperial college is SHIT compared to oxbrdige. it’s like ucb compared to harvard. a joke. NO ONE EVER chooses another uni if they get into oxbridge, unless that other uni is harvard.
now i will explain why acceptance rate of ucb and oxbridge, westminster and trinity school manhattan are NOT an example.
1. unlike ucb and other shitty american unis there is ZERO subjectivity in admissions. applicants know what they MUST have ahead of time, thus…
2. there are far fewer punters. every pushy striving obedient dyslexic, like you, applies to ucb. not what happens in the uk, france, japan, the PRC, taiwan, s korea, etc.
you’re extremely boring and dull prole hymie. it’s sad.
” the oppiste of the case.”
what ?
” you have no clue as to how lower class you sound”
The WASP comments really got to Steinberg.
I remember him coming on here crying about ” old Americans” and saying things like ” only me and Tucker Carlson are the real Americans”
Steinberg piped down a little when i reminded him of who he was.
I cant change my background to make you feel better about yourself.
People like you have no idea what its like for us to see the fall of the country we built.
The really sad thing about all of this is that everything that Steinberg considers to be higher class is British.
Stop appropriating other peoples culture Steinberg.
” FALSE. some courses have an interview. others do not. the only one i know does is medicine. ”
Another example of Steinberg not knowing what he’s talking about.
their exact words:
” The interview plays a vital part in the selection procedure”
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-oxford/interviews?wssl=1
” imperial college is SHIT compared to oxbrdige. ”
Your low reading comprehension lead you to believe that i was comparing unis when i was comparing graduates.
The best do not go to Oxbridge.
Imperial is an elite technical college like MIT so obviously the average student is going to be smarter than a mixed college like Oxford or Cambridge.
” the city” is the best judge of value and imperial grads are everywhere.
LSE grads have a strong presence too.
I don’t expect you to know any of this as your specialty is food distribution.
” applicants know what they MUST have ahead of time, thus… ”
That proves my point.
Everyone knows where they stand in the US
Those who send their children to expensive UK private schools know what they’re paying for.
When Mr Chang ,the corrupt mayor of Shenzhen, sends his scion to Westminster he expects him to be trained for the interviews.
Some private schools even hire former interviewers for the exact questions used.
There are no interviews in the US.
Everyone knows what scores make you competitive for which college and you apply accordingly.
And the extracurriculars are easy to get around for someone who knows how to play the system.
The same goes for the essay.
The essay i wrote was pure liberal talking points.
Everything is easy if you can adapt to your surroundings.
” do you even know what industrial distribution is? ”
Could you please tell me what industrial distribution is ?
All i get is stuff about hardware tools.
What is it that you do, exactly?
could you give me a link to a youtube video demonstrating what you do?
???
Can anyone tell me what Industrial distribution is ?
what does a job like that involve and how much does it pay ?
“and love all the great insights.”
What great insights?
“We’d hate to see the quality decline.”
Quality began to decline once PP became TMZ JR. No HBD talk in a month on a supposed HBD blog. Just opinion pieces (with no citations!!!!!!!!).
This blog post makes me a little sick:
But it is just because I am K-selected (monogamy not polygamy)
To think that woman are into being just toys or objects complete ruins the spiritual aspects of men and woman. Sensuality is gross. Acting like animals is gross. Have some decency, respect yourself.
Philosopher once again thinks jews are in total control the instincts of gentiles.
What I see in men and woman is the equality of what should be love.
Male dominance is nothing but self-gratification, using woman as masturbation toys.
The relationship between and man and woman should be make them the same person not masturbation objects.
pleasure is not love.
Are you asexual?
If I were asexual I would be devoid of sexual desire but that is not true about me. I have desires towards woman but not certain types of woman. I like woman with my personality. But I also have an ideal personality that I desire. Most woman that I encounter have their beautiful side, as in beautiful personality. The physical aspects of men and woman can be seen on the outside but on the inside I have my aesthetics of what I find attractive. I can tell if a person is kind and I can tell if a person is self-aware and I can tell if they are understanding. I have high empathy and I know if someone else has empathy like me. Empathy is a deep understanding of another person. I like high empathy woman. And I like woman that are self intigrated. Ugliness to me is an emotion I see in certain woman that just feels wrong. If I see any judgmentalness in someone (male or female) I immediately have that ugly feeling.
You sound like a really nice guy. You’ll make a good boyfriend ❤
World illuminaticat DEFINITELY is on medication now. Holy shit it’s like a totally different person. His improvement… it’s over 9,000!!!!!!!
“To think that woman are into being just toys or objects complete ruins the spiritual aspects of men and woman. Sensuality is gross. Acting like animals is gross. Have some decency, respect yourself.”
We respect each other a lot, humans are animals and have instincts. Reproduction is one of these instincts.
“What I see in men and woman is the equality of what should be love.”
In every relationship, whether it’s love or friendship, there is always one who dominates the other. It comes naturally and it’s much simpler than always be wondering if the two are getting an equal share of power in the pair.
“Male dominance is nothing but self-gratification, using woman as masturbation toys.”
And how is female dominance any better ?
“The relationship between and man and woman should be make them the same person not masturbation objects.”
Feeling like one is exactly the feeling that good sex gives.
“pleasure is not love.”
?????? The two go hand in hand. There is barely pleasure without love, there is barely love without pleasure.
Your views are extremely marginal, but I’m glad to have this conversation with the new animekitty.
PS: Britney Spears’ video is very hypocrite because it is hypersexual but it criticizes male hypersexuality.
There are different ways to be introverted.
I am an introvert that actually likes people.
It is just that I find it hard to go out and meet them.
I never had the confidence to ask people questions.
I have a fear of rejection and some people just emotionally drain me.
I never had good relationships so I felt I could not trust people.
I am a lot better than I was just several months ago.
The new Illuminatikitty should guest post.
If we could get cat on a coherent day that could be quite interesting
And G-man you need to guest post. You have so much to say and you say it so well.
Esoteric knowledge is a little hard to explain. Language is the limit because meaning is hidden without knowing the symbols. The letter A is aleph in Hebrew and in paleo-Hebrew it is the bull head. The bull head horns can also represent the crescent moon and the moon represents the subconscious, water and femininity. Lumeria was lunar (moon) and the right brain. All this is packed in the letter A. Atlantis is masculine, the sun and the left brain. Atlantis begins with the letter A so the feminine and masculine are not separate. Langauge hides meaning if you do not know where the symbols came from. Liberals are right brained so they are moon beings, they are lemurians. Conservatives are Atlantians. Male and female can be seen in everything. Symbols and historical events and personality follow forces that religion has been using for a long time. Illuminati means “The illuminated ones”. Light can come from both moon and sun. This means that the Illuminati are androgynous. Light is both masculine and feminine. Light represents Truth in the bible. And the Bible says God is Truth. Logos in greek means reasoning. Reasoning is language. Language = The word. The bible also says God is love. Translation of the bible can only been done by the Illuminati because they have the light. Without light there is darkness, (ignorance). Ignorant people do not understand the bible. (logos / reason / word / language.) all these words mean “Truth”. Truth is simply what actually exists in reality.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
In the beginning was the Truth, and the Truth was with Love, and the Truth was Love.
This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.
Illuminati = beings of light
Love is both masculine and feminine (sun and moon).
Did I offend you Pumpkin? Why am I in the dungeon? D:
You could never offend me. You’re my favorite of all the r selected commenters.
I don’t see to you in the dungeon but I’m on the road so i have limited access to all blog features.
If you have a response to afro’s post please post it. Please be as nice as possible since guest bloggers should be treated with extra respect.
Am I your favorite of the K-selected commenters?
I can’t wait to discuss with you what I have drawn up for PPs blog.
Can’t get MeLo’s nice comment to post on my friend’s crappy iPad but i copied and pasted it here:
………………….
Now this is a blogpost.
Long, detailed, logical, and organized.
“Not so much… Why ? Because people just don’t see the actual concrete point of working out extremely complex problems, it is boring and unnecessary for survival. Moreover real math geniuses are rare, most people who are good at maths are just good at using calculators.”
Actually math is highly important in engineering and construction tasks. So it would make sense for tool use to select mathematical capabilities and subsequently use our language to model it in a more efficient manner.
You’re conflating individuals that have High math IQ with Autistic math savants or for a better word “nerds”
In fact, following your dominance paradigm it would make sense for mathematically inclined people to have frequent sexual encounters, because the highest paying jobs are mostly mathematical, and nothing screams power and dominance more than a fistful of cash.
I’m sure you have a high potential for math. You just don’t recognize it.
“Now this is a blogpost.
Long, detailed, logical, and organized.”
Thanks, the writing style, vocabulary and orthography are perfectible, though.
“Actually math is highly important in engineering and construction tasks.”
It is important now, but just because maths have increased the efficiency of technology doesn’t mean that mathematical ability was necessary to these technologies at their early stage.
You know like, writing did a lot for literature, yet a guess people with reading disorders can be good storytellers.
“So it would make sense for tool use to select mathematical capabilities ”
Tool use primarily selects for dexterity, then if dexterity and maths are controlled by the same neural processes, hence selection for maths is a byproduct. But never in history was any population selected for solving maths problems that we now solve with calculators.
“You’re conflating individuals that have High math IQ with Autistic math savants or for a better word “nerds””
Yes indeed, I actually have a lot of friends with engineering degrees who are built, social and not boring whatsoever. I made the shortcut because here, people say that nerdiness = mathematical ability = autism = K-selected = more evolved. Whereas my main point is that humans primarily evolved through natural selection and that physical and personality traits that are judged attractive are signs of fitness.
So in my opinion, we shouldn’t be fooled by the mathematical prowess of some nerds, everything indicates that their abilities were necessary for or survival and they are obviously not the best candidates for sexual selection. I chose maths because it’s the most stereotypical. But there are social sciences nerds too. Just debunking the K selection is the shit garbage.
“and nothing screams power and dominance more than a fistful of cash.”
I don’t think money matters that much because people date in their social class most often. And straight up cash ostentation is rather outlandish in my opinion, like I don’t think a skinny midget with big glasses will get any girl just showing stacks of cash.
“I’m sure you have a high potential for math. You just don’t recognize it.”
I had good grades in maths, but I found it extremely painful to learn, I’m still afraid of complex problems. I think it’s not what I’m drawn to, or at least school and college format. Besides, I’m interested in mechanics, repairing things at home and stuff. But solving math problems in the traditional way just scares me.
damn, I’m still in the haze this morning:
“yet a guess people with reading disorders can be good storytellers.”
With writing disorders
“Whereas my main point is that humans primarily evolved through natural selection”
Through sexual selection.
“everything indicates that their abilities were necessary for or survival ”
Nothing indicates.
Overall, it is obvious that we are much smarter than what basic survival requires. So, survival of the fittest alone has a limited explanatory power whereas sexual selection, by favoring fit, social, risk-taking (curious), ambitious as well as practical problem solvers has the ability to explain this surplus, especially since brains are metabolically costly. And only humans are frivolous enough to appreciate things that give them no immediate edge in survival.
Overall, it is obvious that we are much smarter than what basic survival requires.
How do you know you’re smart enough to survive? You survive because of the technological innovations and wisdom of many geniuses who came before you, not because of your own wits.
I know it well, camped in the woods many times including the rain forest in Guyana. We’ve lost all the naturalistic knowledge of hunter gatherers. I guess we would even come across as misfits if we had to live on medieval technology.
But hunter gatherers are much more intelligent than survival requires, they have lots of intellectual activities like art, storytelling and play that aren’t necessary to survive.
Did you hunt your own food & build your own shelter on this camping trip? Now try it in Alaska in the winter without bringing supplies, food, matches, shelter or clothing.
And who says art & story telling take more smarts than survival?
It’s not enough to be smart enough to hunt & gather, in order to survive, you also must outwit all the rival tribes. There’s only so much food, water & shelter to go around & whichever tribe exploits the environment most efficiently wins out & the others die. Look what happened to the Neanderthals, homo erectus & the Denisovans & what’s happening now to the pygmies & bushmen.
It’s a mental arms race driven by natural selection. The smarter humans got, the smarter they needed to be to survive because the competition got that much smarter too.
“Did you hunt your own food & build your own shelter on this camping trip?”
Lol ! No, it was with the military school, as a former cadet, you must know what I’m talking about. In French Guyana we met with a native Indian tribe, they showed their hunting with mouth propelled poisonous arrows, we ate worms for fun (well, it wasn’t fun for everybody actually) and which plants were edible, poisonous, medicinal or ritual. Otherwise, we just lived like soldiers in the French army and had a soft version of their physical training, we did some camouflage and orientation,some exfiltration scenarios, we didn’t have riffles though. It was educational. And the camps in the French forest were of the same type, without the Indians. I did that from 10 to 14yo
The funny thing is that I was bragging with my cousins like “yeah I can totally survive in the woods” and once on a school holiday I told them come with me for a survival camp in the woods near my parent’s country house. Well… we were back home by 10pm of the first day. LOL.
“Now try it in Alaska in the winter without bringing supplies, food, matches, shelter or clothing”
Humans knew clothing, fire and everything necessary for survival well before they entered cold climate zones. Moreover, they weren’t parachuted, they migrated over tens of thousands of years, never experiencing environmental shock. And they weren’t forced to move either, they moved to places they found suitable for their living. Climate + evolution = trash.
“And who says art & story telling take more smarts than survival?”
Add religion too. They indicate frivolously employed ability for abstract thinking, hence frivolously employed brain matter which can be thought as excess brain matter.
“It’s not enough to be smart enough to hunt & gather, in order to survive, you also must outwit all the rival tribes.”
No evidence of warfare before 10,000 years BC. Population density was too low for resource competition and warfare was too costly as it distracted from food acquisition. Humans traded instead. I know you’re better informed than wikipedia but check this out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_warfare
Look, Alaska has 100,000 natives today, that’s a population density of 0.08 native/km², or a freaking 625km² territory for a tribe of 50, the size of the city of Toronto. And that’s today in 2017, in prehistoric times, population density must have been much lower.
“Look what happened to the Neanderthals, homo erectus & the Denisovans & what’s happening now to the pygmies & bushmen.”
The other hominid species were clearly inferior physically and intellectually, they couldn’t trade with humans and were surpassed in resource acquisition when humans “settled” their lands. But humans traded and probably had land use agreements.
“It’s a mental arms race driven by natural selection. The smarter humans got, the smarter they needed to be to survive because the competition got that much smarter too.”
No.
And I know for certain that if civilization crumbled and we had to start it all over again with paleolithic technology alone, the nerds would be the first to disappear. I saw a documentary on US prisons and the inmates were so damn skilled for creating all sorts of tools that are forbidden by the administration, add their balls and low morals and it’s open season on nerds. I mean, if we were stranded on a desert island, we’d start eating santoculto or anime kitty, not me or RR.
Good idea for a post: which commenter would you eat if stranded in the middle of nowhere ?
Lol ! No, it was with the military school, as a former cadet, you must know what I’m talking about.
It was a rhetorical question Afro. I didn’t actually think you hunted and gathered.
Humans knew clothing, fire and everything necessary for survival well before they entered cold climate zones.
They had primitive clothing before they entered cold climates, but finely worked bone needles for sewing animal skins didn’t appear until perhaps as recently as 20,000 years ago or so.
Moreover, they weren’t parachuted, they migrated over tens of thousands of years, never experiencing environmental shock.
Temperatures can shift quite dramatically, even over a period of a few minutes. I am sure there were many people who died because they couldn’t adapt fast enough to the sudden cold and ferocious blizzards. And even for those who entered cold regions gradually, it would have been largely the brightest who could keep migrating further and further North, while those who couldn’t cope with cold would have stayed behind or migrated backwards.
And they weren’t forced to move either, they moved to places they found suitable for their living.
Many times they were forced to move, either because food and water dried up, or because a superior tribe came along and said “We’re taking this nice camp ground on the beach. Beat it!”
Add religion too. They indicate frivolously employed ability for abstract thinking, hence frivolously employed brain matter which can be thought as excess brain matter.
Something can evolve out of necessity but still be used for trivial pursuits. Our eyes and hands were also needed to make art, does that mean they weren’t need for survival?
No evidence of warfare before 10,000 years BC.
It depends how you define warfare and the further back in time you go, the harder it is to find evidence. The Jebel Sahaba site in Sudan is thought to be evidence of warfare as early as 13,000 years ago, though the dating is not reliable.
Harvard anthropologist Luke Glowacki says “…warfare can and did occur in the absence of agriculture and complex social organization…” and sees “…a continuum between chimpanzee raiding and full-blown human warfare.”
Further:
Even if early humans were mostly cooperative with each other during the Paleolithic era—a period lasting about two million years—there is plenty of evidence to suggest that (like today), some people were just plain nasty. Cannibalism was clearly practiced in some areas…We know that there is at least one case of Homo erectus with extensive cuts on the cranium indicating that the person was essentially scalped and the eyes gouged out…
The other hominid species were clearly inferior physically and intellectually, they couldn’t trade with humans and were surpassed in resource acquisition when humans “settled” their lands. But humans traded and probably had land use agreements.
So you admit that resource competition was very important to evolution prior to mass trade, which only became significant around 50,000 years ago or so. And even with trade, smarter tribes could exploit the environment to make more valuable goods to trade with and also acquire more wealth by making smarter trades. These tribes would see their populations increase because they had more bounty. And the fact that humans replaced neanderthals, erectus, heidelbergensis, and denisovans, through superior resource competition, radically changed the trajectory of human evolution. It’s utterly preposterous to argue resource competition did not play a colossal role in how human intelligence evolved.
And I know for certain that if civilization crumbled and we had to start it all over again with paleolithic technology alone, the nerds would be the first to disappear.
Modern humans are the nerds of the animal kingdom, and we are the nerds of the homo genus. Neanderthals were the jocks.
I mean, if we were stranded on a desert island, we’d start eating santoculto or anime kitty, not me or RR.
Actually both men would kick the shit out of you two. Just because santo is honest about his sexuality and kitty is super nice, doesn’t mean they can’t fight.
Ok, I go back to sleep. Answer that tomorrow.
“It was a rhetorical question Afro. I didn’t actually think you hunted and gathered.”
I didn’t phrase it correctly in my first response, I meant I was well aware that I didn’t have the survival skills of early humans. My bad, fuck it.
“They had primitive clothing before they entered cold climates, but finely worked bone needles for sewing animal skins didn’t appear until perhaps as recently as 20,000 years ago or so.”
What a breakthrough ! Look, as I told you, climate and evolution is trash as far as hominids are concerned
Look at this graph and tell me how many extremes in temperature are linked to the emergence of a new species or a new technological era ?
“Temperatures can shift quite dramatically, even over a period of a few minutes. “
No PP, just no. Stop saying whatever.
“I am sure there were many people who died because they couldn’t adapt fast enough to the sudden cold and ferocious blizzards. “
Same thing could be said about hot climates, desertification, dust storms. Trash again.
“And even for those who entered cold regions gradually, it would have been largely the brightest who could keep migrating further and further North, while those who couldn’t cope with cold would have stayed behind or migrated backwards. “
Yes gradually is the least we can say: 800m a year if it means something to you.
“Many times they were forced to move, either because food and water dried up,”
So they moved 5km farther.
“because a superior tribe came along and said “We’re taking this nice camp ground on the beach. Beat it!””
So they moved 10km farther. If it ever happened. And it would also mean that those who have to move further away from their familiar environment were the losers of resource competition. Tough places for losers, best ones for winners
Btw, Pygmies, Bushmen, Inuits, Aborigines… ain’t really dying out, their environment is being transformed to the point that they can’t pursue their traditional way of life. So they become sedentary and have difficulty to adjust to our modern environment. But nothing like that happened in the paleolithic. If a band had to leave because of another one, they would still have traded with equal terms of exchange.
“Something can evolve out of necessity but still be used for trivial pursuits. Our eyes and hands were also needed to make art, does that mean they weren’t need for survival?”
Sure, but what’s happening in humans is that we are now completely incompetent in the skills that we are supposed to have been selected for. Eyes can still see, hands can still grab a spear but Homo Nerdicus can’t shoot a bird.
“It depends how you define warfare and the further back in time you go, the harder it is to find evidence.”
Warfare is when two groups engage in violent confrontation. Anyway, since when do you care about evidence ?
“there is plenty of evidence to suggest that (like today), some people were just plain nasty .Cannibalism was clearly practiced in some areas”
Yes, there was violence, but it’s nothing like the state of constant warfare that you described in your previous comment.
“We know that there is at least one case of Homo erectus with extensive cuts on the cranium indicating that the person was essentially scalped and the eyes gouged out…”
Oh, I’m sorry santoculto I just needed balls to play tennis.
“So you admit that resource competition was very important to evolution prior to mass trade, which only became significant around 50,000 years ago or so.”
No, I ain’t concedin’ nuthin’. Check your chronology to begin with, 50,000 years ago is about the time of the first migrations out of Africa. Irrelevant for HBD. Second things, Humans took over these inferior beings because they were of no use to them, whereas they had interest in cooperating with other homo sapiens bands.
“And even with trade, smarter tribes could exploit the environment to make more valuable goods to trade with and also acquire more wealth by making smarter trades.”
Wow, slow down. What are you talking about ? The upper paleolithic is something like 40k years of quasi-perfect cultural and technological stagnation.
“It’s utterly preposterous to argue resource competition did not play a colossal role in how human intelligence evolved. “
Nope, what’s extremely preposterous is all you wrote before. But I saw the worst was yet to come.
“Modern humans are the nerds of the animal kingdom, and we are the nerds of the homo genus. Neanderthals were the jocks. “
Wooow Dawg, please… Are you serious ? I mean like, are you really showing me this silly cartoon like it’s a valuable contribution to this conversation?
One thing to begin with: nerds aren’t good craftsmen, they can’t lace their shoes. Nerdiness = social incompetence, and humans are the most socially competent hominids. Second thing, humans are the most athletic and probably the most agile of our evolutionary family, Neanderthals were lame.
“Actually both men would kick the shit out of you two. Just because santo is honest about his sexuality and kitty is super nice, doesn’t mean they can’t fight.”
Dude, you don’t mean it. You know that I can kill someone with my fists ? Even my gal’ could beat them up and keep her manicure on fleek. Also, you should know that androgen and fitness make people much more resistant to pain and injury. I’m a living weapon PP.
Now remember gym class in high school ? When we had to make teams for a game. The coach picked the two big dudes as captains of each team, I was always either captain or first chosen by a captain. And the last ones sitting on the bench would have been santoculto and animekitty. Unable to make my mind, I’d have been like “coach, can I pick a girl ?”. If I had to make a team for a paleolithic survival camp, I’d have made the same team as for a soccer game and if some guy came and told me “he’s lame but he has the best grades in maths” I’d have slapped this guy in his face.
And it’s not only about physical performance, I’d be vital on a paleolithic band because I’m afraid of nothing. I would cross a river or climb a tree to find food, and if I got eaten by some ferocious beasts doing it at least the band would have learnt that there are cruel animals. If I find food, I decide how I share it, and of course RR would receive twice as much as Animekitty. In addition to that, I can find funny applications to the most unexpected things, so maybe I could invent a tool by accident or a musical instrument to bounce my pecs to the beat and provide some great paleolithic entertainment. And while Animekitty would be making necklaces with the teeth of some beast RR and I hunted, you’d dare me to approach a wild cow and I’d be like “I can even ride it bro”. Domestication. So if we had to eat someone, we’d eat santoculto: we wouldn’t know about HIV and honestly, no one could bear his effete manners.
Thank you pumpkin, I hope this one goes through.
” You know like, writing did a lot for literature, yet a guess people with reading disorders can be good storytellers.”
That’s my point though. Logic is to mathematics what language is to writing/reading.
“hence selection for maths is a byproduct. But never in history was any population selected for solving maths problems that we now solve with calculators.”
It’s more appropriate to say that we didn’t evolve to specifically categorize abstractions for more efficient processing.
Language evolved before writing as such, it’s more than likely the ability to handle complex math evolved before the ability to symbolize it.
For example brazilian children are able to utilize mathematical thinking when selling candy on the street but are unable to replicate these abilities in more scholastic settings.
Click to access Anderson,%20Reder_Pt1.pdf
Click to access Saxe%20candy%20selling%20CD.pdf
“nerdiness = mathematical ability ”
No. Nerdiness=no social life= more time to refine mathematical ability.
A nerd is someone with vast knowledge in very few subjects, not an actually intelligent person.
You display a high level of general knowledge meaning you’re probably have a high potential for math.
“Just debunking the K selection is the shit garbage.”
Don’t worry.
I’m r selected because I like black music and white women. So there’s that.
“I don’t think money matters that much because people date in their social class most often.”
The fact people date within their social sphere implies they care about money to some extent. Money is more important for long term relationships.
“I don’t think a skinny midget with big glasses will get any girl just showing stacks of cash.”
You’d be surprised.
“I had good grades in maths, but I found it extremely painful to learn, I’m still afraid of complex problems.”
Don’t fret even physicists get math anxiety
http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/7698.html
“Through sexual selection.”
Indeed and our mathematical ability far exceeds what is actually appropriate for our environment.
Homo heidelbergensis has more or less the biggest brain a hominid would need to survive in most environments. This implies our big brains are a result of sexual and social competition.
Pumpkin
“You survive because of the technological innovations and wisdom of many geniuses who came before you”
…So do hunter gatherers. Humans are cultural and social creatures.
…So do hunter gatherers. Humans are cultural and social creatures.
Which further proves my point. Not only did we NOT evolve much more intelligence than we needed to survive, but even the intelligence we do have is insufficient without combining it with the smarts of thousands of other humans, and even working in social groups, only extremely recently did survival become easy. And there are STILL parts of the World that we struggle to live in.
Yayy! I’m free again!
“Not only do we NOT evolve much more intelligence than we needed to survive”
What makes your say that? Homo erectus was the second most successful hominin. With a brain size that only capped at about 1100cc, their habitat still ranged from africa to east asia and possibly europe. And some evidence suggests they survived until around 70,00 years ago. In fact I would argue that competition with homo sapiens is what drove erectus, neanderthalis, and the denisovans extinct.
Hunter gatherers actually have a pretty easy time hunting, so much so that they can afford to be selfish.
http://www.evoanth.net/2016/03/01/hunter-gatherer-hunters/
When competition is taken out of the equation survival against natural forces is pretty easy for acclimated humans. If you took a white baby and put it in an african hunter-gatherer tribe he would prosper.
“even the intelligence we do have is insufficient without combining it with the smarts of thousands of other humans, and even working in social groups”
Humans are naturally social. This is why human babies are born so underdeveloped, they are taught at a very young age, but there still exists a priori. You need an pre-existing level of intelligence to culturally learn or to competently socialize in general. If the population’s mean IQ is 100 it’ll be difficult for an individual with an IQ of 80 to successfully communicate with his peers. As you said it’s an arms race or a feedback loop.
“bone needles for sewing animal skins didn’t appear until perhaps as recently as 20,000 years ago or so.”
And yet they survived perfectly fine for the first 20,000 years. Not to mention the neanderthals who survived perfectly fine for 300,000 years.
“It’s utterly preposterous to argue resource competition did not play a colossal role in how human intelligence evolved.”
Indeed, as Lions evolved sharp claws and other extremities to properly extract resources from their enivronment, reproduce, and survive in general, primates utilized large social groups to achieve the same. Which chain reacted into the upward trend in brain size we’ve seen for the last few million years. So if some anthropologist, primatologist or biologist asks me what caused hominin encephalization, I tend to say “sociality” not “resource allocation” because the latter simply sounds vague to someone more versed in the literature.
“STILL parts of the World that we struggle to live in.”
Yeah like places we have no business even being in. Living on the moon would be pretty expensive.
What makes your say that? Homo erectus was the second most successful hominin. With a brain size that only capped at about 1100cc, their habitat still ranged from africa to east asia and possibly europe.
They never made it to the Americas, Australia or Northern Eurasia (if this source can be believed):
http://www.abroadintheyard.com/prehistoric-empires-geographic-ranges-human-species/
Further, their population size, life span, or quality of life never came close to ours. And whatever they did accomplish was only possible because they didn’t face competition from modern humans. Once we showed up, they were toast.
And some evidence suggests they survived until around 70,00 years ago. In fact I would argue that competition with homo sapiens is what drove erectus, neanderthalis, and the denisovans extinct
Precisely my point: Competition over resources is what drove the evolution of human intelligence. Dumber populations couldn’t compete, leaving smarter ones as the survivors.
Hunter gatherers actually have a pretty easy time hunting, so much so that they can afford to be selfish.
Then why are they going extinct? The bushmen and pygmies are seeing their population size hit dangerously low levels. Maybe when they had the land to themselves it was easy, but not when they face competition for resources from technological populations.
When competition is taken out of the equation survival against natural forces is pretty easy for acclimated humans.
But competition is precisely what makes it hard, but even without competition, surviving in the super cold was too hard for Erectus and perhaps even some modern human populations.
Humans are naturally social.
We have to be because we’re not smart enough to survive as individuals, but even in groups, it took us so long to conquer the coldest regions.
And yet they survived perfectly fine for the first 20,000 years.
Europe didn’t get super cold until 30,000 years ago. And they barely survived, living in conditions worse than today’s homeless.
Not to mention the neanderthals who survived perfectly fine for 300,000 years.
They survived because of physical adaptations (short stocky bodies) not because of behavioral adaptability (intelligence). Yet despite their cold adapted bodies, they struggled to survive when it got extra cold 30,000 years ago, yet modern humans could because of their ingenuity.
So if some anthropologist, primatologist or biologist asks me what caused hominin encephalization, I tend to say “sociality” not “resource allocation” because the latter simply sounds vague to someone more versed in the literature.
One could also argue the opposite. If we weren’t so social, our brains would have been three times bigger, because we couldn’t rely on all our friends to help us solve problems. A large social group helps keep brains small because we combine the brain power of the whole social group, so each individual doesn’t need as much smarts.
PP why are you not publishing my comments in this thread.
PP why are you not publishing my comments in this thread.
Because you argue with me about so many different topics that I don’t have time to respond to every single one, especially when other people are already making the same arguments you’re making. I admire all your energy and free time, but I think it would be much more constructive if you just wrote a guest post, clearly making one argument (for now) in a very thorough well researched way, rather than arguing with me about a dozen topics a day in a dozen different places, often repeating the same arguments in many places.
Melo, there is evidence that erectus died out 143-550kya and never interacted with modern Man.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0021562
Got the source for him dying out 70kya?
“If you took a white baby and put it in an african hunter-gatherer tribe he would prosper.”
Doubtful. If the babe was born in Africa, though, it’d have more sweat glands. That’s one way how immediate environment can have an effect on phentype. But a white babe thrown into Africa won’t have the same disease resistance and other evolutionary adaptions as the native H-Gs did.
“Because you argue with me about so many different topics that I don’t have time to respond to every single one, especially when other people are already making the same arguments you’re making. I admire all your energy and free time, but I think it would be much more constructive if you just wrote a guest post, clearly making one argument (for now) in a very thorough well researched way, rather than arguing with me about a dozen topics a day in a dozen different places, often repeating the same arguments in many places.”
Fair enough. I will make my guest post on how we evolved to be endurance runners, which eventually lead to our ability to become intelligent. I still want to respond to Afro’s post, will do so tonight. I’ll write out a well-researched article on the subject and send it to you. Any word limits? You know I like writing 1200-1600 words.
No word limits, but you should aim to express yourself as concisely as possible, if you want to persuade your audience (people have short attention spans, so the most effective communicators get straight to the point).
Got you. But you are supposed to write for the audience you want . . .
“Melo, there is evidence that erectus died out 143-550kya and never interacted with modern Man.”
I think the study was showing there is a possibility of a higher maximum range but variation is still within 12,000 years ago.
“The 40Ar/39Ar analyses give an average age of 546±12 ka (sd±5 se) for both sites, the first reliable radiometric indications of a middle Pleistocene component for the terrace. Given the technical accuracy and consistency of the analyses, the argon ages represent either the actual age or the maximum age for the terrace and are significantly older than previous estimates. Most of the ESR/U-series results are older as well, but the oldest that meets all modeling criteria is 143 ka+20/−17.”
“Got the source for him dying out 70kya?”
Here. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/ngandong-13
I’m assuming it’s from the previous measurements of soloman.
In fact there was nothing inherently wrong with the first study, the results just slightly conflict at the extreme ends
“But a white babe thrown into Africa won’t have the same disease resistance and other evolutionary adaptions as the native H-Gs did”
True to some extent. Genetically, hunter gatherers would have had a much worse disease resistance than us. I’m sure the black plague affected whites’ genome quite a bit, some people are immune to HIV, because they have two copies of the same gene.
http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news13
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/09/it-wasnt-just-neanderthals-ancient-humans-had-sex-other-hominids/338117/
Supposed evidence we did it with erectus too.
Interesting map, if accurate. This is the range of homo heidelbergensis, the ancestor of people and neanderthals.
Funny to see that it was harder to cross the Congo rainforest and settle West Africa than going to Britain. And apparently, our parent species was afraid to scale the Iranian mountains that open the gates of Asia.
The other maps:
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
The Man of Neanderthal
I don’t have too much time to comment right now but I’ll get back to these maps asap.
“They never made it to the Americas, Australia or Northern Eurasia”
They almost made it to australia,(the americas is almost irelevant).
This is why i had originally said Heidelbergensis’ brain size would be all you actually need to survive pretty much anywhere. Around 1200-1300 CC. It’s the same size as modern African hunter-gatherers(bushmen 1270), which implies bushmen are more than equipped to deal with cold conditions.
“Further, their population size, life span, or quality of life never came close to ours. ”
So?
“it took us so long to conquer the coldest regions.”
It actually took us a very short time.
“Competition over resources is what drove the evolution of human intelligence”
So you agree it’s not the actual environment that kicks our ass, it’s other people.
“We have to be because we’re not smart enough to survive as individuals”
Maybe if you take the full scope of variation into consideration, but I don’t even buy that, because an IQ of 90 is more than enough to survive in the bitter arctic.
“And they barely survived, living in conditions worse than today’s homeless.”
No, they were very well fed, as RR pointed out before, their diet was filled with high fat and protein. You overrate how harsh the cold is.
“They survived because of physical adaptations (short stocky bodies) not because of behavioral adaptability (intelligence).”
Their body shape could not possibly be the sole reason they survived for 300,000 years ago. They cooked, they had art, they took care of their elderly, they buried their dead etc. You don’t just become the Apex predator of Eurasia from only being a buff monkey.
In fact Neanderthals starved less than intuits do.
https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/neander.htm
“Yet despite their cold adapted bodies, they struggled to survive when it got extra cold 30,000 years ago, yet modern humans could because of their ingenuity.”
Neanderthals survived many climate shifts, human competition is what killled them off.
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/8/2134
“If we weren’t so social, our brains would have been three times bigger, because we couldn’t rely on all our friends to help us solve problems. ”
That’s actually a very interesting point you brought up. No if we were less social our evolutionary path would closely reflect chimps.
The brain is a very expensive organ, as I’m sure you already know. Therefore our body uses a lot compensation methods to help regulate the brain’s functions and efficiency
Usually, evolution comes with a lot of trade offs, Have you noticed that nearly all of the most intelligent animals on the planet live in structured social groups? Elephants, primates, cephalopods, Dolphins, whales, birds etc. This is because life history and sociality are the compensators for encephalization. Genes are simply too slow to only focus on the potential of g so instead the plasticity of g is prioritized.
The natural world simply isn’t a powerful enough selector for the extra cranial capacity we carry. Without socialization we would have developed bigger muscles, or just thicker hair, because it is they are the far easier evolutionary routes.
If our ancestors were not isolated but evolved in groups of 100 people, it would have make sense that there was another pattern to the pp hypothesis : that genes from two dominant couple and two dominated prospered, leading to a big group of dominated people and a small class a dominant one.
That could explain was so many male could be cocky while being very submissive to hierarchy. I have notice that most people who make career are very able to conform themselves to hierarchy needs while looking at the same time dominant. Like pack of dogs or dogs barking while moving back.
That would explain the existence of firms, institutions etc., strong inequality without revolution. Most people belong to dominated group.
I don’t understand the first part of your comment but I’m on board with the following one.
Me and my friends were all in the associations and clubs (somewhat like the fraternities in the US) in college. We were the big boys, partying 3-4 days a week, doing bad ass things and stuff. Jocks. But we were all ultra docile in class and now in our jobs. Some of my college friends were former nerds who flourished after high school as well. The fact is that dominant males respect dominant males, soldiers respect officers, athletes respect coaches, employees respect bosses. Competition happens between men of equal status.
If people are born to be dominated, moving people across borders, to exploit them, and chastise the way of life of local that feel entitled to something because of national heritage, is rather a very sensible policy.
Dennett is quite interesting as a philosopher of mind and language*. When he speaks about religion, he is mere bar-romme philosophising.
*To young (french) people who wants to discover challenging philosophy questions and who know their classics (from Aristote, Platon to Russell, Frege, Quine and Carnap) i always advise to read those philosophers : Donald Davidson, Robert Stalnaker, Peter Gärdenfors, Isaac Levi, Jerry Fodor, Paul Smolensky, Paul and Patricia Churchland and Nelson Goodman and …. Daniel Dennett ! But it is a quite challenging task. Not really litterature.
It’s a pitty that no philosopher of this caliber has never study biology applied to social sciences questions related to intelligence, race, behaviours etc. Hernstein and Murray are entertaining and kind (i love to watch all Murray video even if he says always the same thing, a bit like Trump during his campaign last rally) but it has nothing to do with a serious philosophy work. They didn’t have the brain to do it for a start.
Race realist would like this:
http://www.evoanth.net/2017/03/07/humans-evolved-cook-food/
I wrote about Carmody et al 2016 two weeks ago.
My reasoning in the article is solid, if I don’t say so myself.
I personally like the biological evidence for human fire use (not only because the biological evidence for fire is 2 mya, but because biological changes mean that’s when we started using fire).
So genes were differentially expressed, but positive selection didn’t occur for at least 1 my. Further, of course selection for the alleles that are beneficial would take a bit to reach fixation. For instance, if the genetic expression from cooking was more beneficial than the he genetic expression from plant eating, the genes under pressure from cooking will become fixated in the population.
I hope I explained that correctly.
Why are people with no children giving dating advice?
I’d like to guest post since we’re discussing a topic about dominance and submission. It’s the perfect opportunity to voice my theory. “Due to women and men wanting largely different attributes on the dating market, there evolved a double standard between the sexes when it comes to physical attractiveness.”
As a man Have you ever stopped to think that “hey if I get this super feminine, big eyed, full lipped, beutiful submissive woman pregnant wouldn’t I pass on these traits to my SON?!”
The answer is of course not! As a man you will produce the maximum number of offspring by impregnating these types of females because A. They won’t put up a fight and B. You can walk away without much consequence because they will be too submissive to retaliate.
Now imagine having a son by said beutiful woman. Now he is more beautiful and submissive than you, even if it’s it’s only slightly more. Each generation the male descendents become more and more feminine until the lineage stops, or they reproduce with a more masculine female. Of course the pretty boys don’t want a manly woman but it’s either that or nothing.
It’s similar with females and height. If females want men taller than them, and this goal is reached generation after generation, then the goal will be harder and harder to reach until the genes die out or there is a regression to the mean, because the females decide to “settle” instead of lose genes.
Iv said it before and I’ll say it again. Essentially men only care about producing beutiful daughters. Be damned with handsome sons!
Now from the female perspective.
A female will produce the most amount of offspring by reproducing with a man of great resources to care for children, but of little political and social power over the course of her entire life. Although a woman can enhance her succsess further by “sneaking in” one night stands and affairs, with men like rulers, royalty, kings, or even younger healthier men, in order to secure higher quality genes along with continued investment from her long term mate
For example females will prefer a farmer who can feed a family of 12, or a hard working man that follows the law and provides for their children, over some rich asshole politician or king for long term mating. This is proven in the Wikipedia for women with the most children. All the top women mated with a man of hi material resources but low status.
And for short term mating women place significantly more on stake in physical attractiveness, dominance and sexyness, especially on the day of ovulation.
For scientific guest posts I expect extremely rigorous scientific research with excellent sourcing, however Mikey you could do a guest post on your reproductive success and what it is about you that attracts so many women. Or you could guest blog about your fascinating biography and how your IQ has changed over the years.
Do you mind if I add references with links at the end or should I link the journal articles inside the articles? Look at my recent articles in the past two months to see what I’m talking about.
Whatever you prefer. Your referencing style is actually quite sophisticated (APA style) and similar to what is used in peer reviewed journals
It’s what I learned in abnormal psychology class. I use citationmachine.net to make the references. If I can’t find a particular reference I just talk other papers that referenced it for the citation. APA is much better than Chicago and MLA.
I’ll try to keep between 12 nd 1400 words, sans references. I’ll email it to you tomorrow morning. Melo and Afro will love it.
Sounds good
Needless to say, I’m drunk again tonite
You didn’t mention anything about dick size.
And I expected this post to generate more excitement😴d
me too, im sulking on this blog from now on
A big dick is part of the whole macho package, it boosts ego and impresses your girl in bed. But I can’t really have solid hypotheses about penis size and overall dominance.
And I doubt a girl will look up to her man just because he’s well endowed.
My belief is that dominance (and relatedly, penis size) serve two roles: to impress the ladies, and to scare off other men. But the latter function is probably the more important of the two, especially in our evolutionary past. I mean, sure, women like big dicks and dominance, but it seems men are more worried about these things than women. It seems people mostly mate with people with similar interests, intelligence, and attractiveness, and only shallow, superficial women (those with relatively low Honesty -Humility from the HEXACO personality inventory) think consciously about penis size and dominance. This might be like 20-30%of white women who really care.
I’m guessing a female’s sex drive plays a role, too.
And the reason I mention dominance and penis size together is because I’m willing to bet they’re correlated, perhaps due to genetic pleiotropy.
I’m on board, and I have mostly dated “shallow superficial women”. I can read some contempt in your phrasing but I think that it would make sense that women evolved to care a lot about their appearance in order to attract the top males. Bimbos are the finest product of evolution, alongside macho men.
There’s no contempt here. I’m just saying women who pursue dominant men (bimbos as you call them) are only a minority of women. You can find this type of woman on the arms of celebrities, athletes, and high-profile businessmen/lawyer types like Donald Trump. Not all women want to be like that, and not all men want that type of woman.
And “evolution’ s finest” is subjective. The most numerically dominant people on the planet are the Chinese and the Indians. It seems they are evolutionarily the most “fit”.
I think, these women are the majority. Hollywood pretty much reflects our basic instincts, the archetypes that it pictures sort of depict who’s being sexually selected.
And India and China’s populations are due to the high population density that the carrying capacity of their environment enables.
Do you know that China (Northern and Southern) has a year-long growing season. That’s another blow to the cold winter and planing garbage.
Afro, have you ever read any of the pickup artist stuff like Chateau Heartiste?
What’s your thoughts?
No, I’m an autodidact. I built up my game through trial and error, hearing other people’s stories (especially my girlfriends’ girlfriends) and I guess R&B songs sort of schooled me.
I don’t cry though
My theme song:
Pingback: Women have a genetic need to be dominated & men have a genetic need to dominate | Pumpkin Person