Evolutionary psychology is essential to understand human behavior and the human mind. Evolution gives ultimate , not proximate explanations.
In ethology, the study of animal behavior, causation can be considered in terms of these two mechanisms.
Proximate causation: Explanation of an animal’s behavior based on trigger stimuli and internal mechanisms.
Ultimate causation: Explanation of an animal’s behavior based on the principles of evolution. The ultimate causation requires that the behavioral and physical traits are genetically heritable, and explains behavior by correlating behavioral traits to mechanisms that favor evolutionary development, such as natural selection.
Why are men more unfaithful and promiscuous then women?
ultimate explanation: A woman can only have one offspring every few years. No matter with how many men she has sex. So she can only influence the genetic quality of her offspring, and try to find a good father, a good caretaker. A promiscuous man can have an unlimited number of offspring, the world record being many hundreds. So more partners gets more offspring for men. And thus the genes for promiscuity in men spread faster then the genes for faithfulness.
Males are overrepresented in jail, death row, war death, work accidents, accidental death & involuntary middle age virginity, reproductive failures, mental retardation. Feminist and men’s right’s activist fail to request female quotas in jail. Isn’t it funny? We need quotas in politics, management, Universities. But no quotas among homeless and war dead? No gender equality on Titanic life boat seats!
some women systematically looked up at the top of society and saw men everywhere: most world rulers, presidents, prime ministers, most members of Congress and parliaments, most CEOs of major corporations, and so forth — these are mostly men.
The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too. Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? US Department of Labor statistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men. Likewise, who gets killed in battle? Even in today’s American army, which has made much of integrating the sexes and putting women into combat, the risks aren’t equal. This year we passed the milestone of 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938 were men, 62 were women.
Equal rights, equal duty. Did feminists fight for conscription for women?
One can imagine an ancient battle in which the enemy was driven off and the city saved, and the returning soldiers are showered with gold coins. An early feminist might protest that hey, all those men are getting gold coins, half of those coins should go to women. In principle, I agree. But remember, while the men you see are getting gold coins, there are other men you don’t see, who are still bleeding to death on the battlefield from spear wounds. Is There Anything Good About Men? by Roy F. Baumeister
Men outnumber women both among the losers and among the biggest winners
Men take high risks. They reap high rewards, and pay with death, injury, abysmal failures. Feminists are envious of the winners, and oblivious of the losers. They want to get the gold coins without risking their lives in the fight.
Evolution built this higher risk, higher variance even into genetics of male physical features: There are more men that are extremely tall, extremely intelligent, etc and there are more men then women at the bottom, with the lowest IQ, shortest height, etc.
Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.
Over half the males but very few females were reproductive failures
Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. [ . . ] Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago [2005].
I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.
In evolutionary times, in the “EEA” 100 000 years ago, only very few women failed to reproduce, but about 60% of the men were total evolutionary failures. They are the end of their genetic line. Every man or women know that some guys are girl magnets, while others barely stand a chance: Nerds, socially inept, shy, ugly, handicapped. And even nowadays, with legally enforced monogamy, there still is serial monogamy after divorce, and affairs, both practiced mainly by successful men.
In terms of the biological competition to produce offspring, then, men outnumbered women both among the losers and among the biggest winners. [ . . . ] Experts estimate Genghis Khan had several hundred and perhaps more than a thousand children. […] For him, the big risks led to huge payoffs in offspring. My point is that no woman, even if she conquered twice as much territory as Genghis Khan, could have had a thousand children.
And thousand’s of wanna-be Genghis Khan’s died before they had a chance to reproduce. And others were snubbed by women.
Feminists look for equal rights without equal risk & equal losses.
Most cultures have tended to use men for these high-risk, high-payoff slots much more than women. I shall propose there are important pragmatic reasons for this. The result is that some men reap big rewards while others have their lives ruined or even cut short. Most cultures shield their women from the risk and therefore also don’t give them the big rewards
Men outnumber women both among the losers and among the biggest winners
Ancient Greek Pedophile art: An ephebe kisses a man. 5th c.. At the Louvre. Proof of age not available.
Isn’t it strange? For traditional feminists who want female equality, freedom and self determination, it looks amazing
feminists don’t oppose the burka and are quiet about Muslim repression of females (because Muslims successfully keep women away from the eyes of the feminist’s spouses)
feminists successfully restrict women’s right to choose sexual services (prostitution) as a profession. that often pays lots more money then other work. Of course, men who can pay $100 to an attractive prostitute are less likely to marry an average looking fat aging woman who later will take away half their property and demand half their income.
I got convinced that the antifeminists hypothesis is the most parsimonious explanation for these apparent contradictions.
Feminists conspire to increase their sexual value by eliminating female sexual of competition
What feminists strive for
Explanation
(increasing their own sexual market value by reducing competition)
Feminists even repress women,
to foster their reproductive goal of reducing sexual options for their own men
feminists don’t oppose the burka and are quiet about Muslim repression of females
because Muslim’s repression of women successfully keep women away from the eyes and hands of the feminist’s spouses
feminists don’t promote women’s right to free choice, rather they successfully restrict women’s right to choose sexual services (prostitution) as a profession
Of course, men who can pay $100 to an attractive prostitute are less likely to marry an average looking women who later will take away half their property and demand half their income for life.
Prostitutes are non-Union picket line violators, they give away their work cheaply
decrease age of consent to eliminate competition by very young attractive women
(age of consent used to be 12, is now 18 everywhere and there seem to be plans to increase it to 21 worldwide)
prohibit erotic art, photography, pornography
Under the guise of protecting porn models (who did not ask to be protected and do not want to go back to menial jobs) feminists want to avoid men seeing attractive women naked, getting distracted, spending time and money.
prohibit sex dolls, sex robots, but not vibrators
Pedophile witch hunters & feminists are NOT concerned about children’s well being
Congratulations to the antifeminist blog, they are the only ones that give a sensible explanation for this: feminists want to cut of competition to their sexual monopoly so men will continue paying high prices for sex (marriage with life long support and half of all property on divorce).
I quote the antifeminist blog, I could not say this any better.
Why do I think you are obsessed with criminilizing everything and only those things that harm your particular, selfish reproductive and sexual needs? Because that is all you seem to be interested in. What about teenage girls bullying and beating each other up on video and then having them uploaded to websites that make money from advertisements? Naahh, no sexual threat, therefore nothing to say. What about teenage girls and even 10 year old girls appearing on reality tv shows to be exploited for commercial gain by adults and clearly suffering psychological distress as a result? Nope, no specific sexual threat to your reproductive interests so you have probably never given it two seconds thought. A 17 year old who likes to screw older men? You don’t want your man running off with or even looking at a hot 17 year old, so therefore 17 year old girls can’t give meaingful consent and older men should be criminilized.[…]
Can 17 year old girls make meaningful decisions about whether or not their unborn babies should be killed? Is having sex really more complex than deciding which political party is best able to govern? Surely if an 18 year old can vote, a 17 year old can fuck? And how come she can consent to sex with another 17 year old and not a 25 year old?? http://www.theantifeminist.com/the-chilling-banality-of-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-2452
“Intelligent design” or “scientific” creationism are buzzwords created by religious fundamentalists, with the agenda to put content of 2000 year old religious books into our children’s school science curriculum.
Dawkins just takes apart all the religous arguments, shreds them into pieces. Watch the video “the purpose of purpose”.
Menschliche Dummheit hat sicherlich viel mit unserer evolutionären Programmierung zu tun. Was wir heute tun und denken ist davon geprägt was sich durch natürliche Selektion vor 100 000 Jahren in unseren Vorfahren entwickelt hat.
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,621317,00.html
Der Mensch hat im Laufe der Evolution viel gelernt – nicht alles erweist sich heutzutage als nützlich. Freund-Feind-Schemata und Pauschalisieren, das Suchen nach Mustern und monokausalen Zusammenhängen – der Literaturwissenschaftler Karl Eibl warnt vor den Gefahren dieses Steinzeit-Erbes.
A. Unconsciousness and irrationality: the myth of rationality 3
B. Deception: the myth of sincerity 4
C. Hypotheses of this paper: an overview 5
III. Evolutionary theory 6
A. Ultimate reasons 6
B. The survival of the fittest 7
C. Inclusive fitness and altruism: the selfish gene 7
D. Validity of evolutionary theory for humans 10
E. The influence of group living 11
F. War and intergroup violence: group selection revisited 13
G. Learning and culture 15
