Hi guys
Just-published is the journal-commissioned book, SEX DIFFERENCE EXPLAINED: From DNA to Society – Purging Gene Copy Errors, by Steve Moxon.
It’s a ‘bottom-up’ from biology, cutting-edge holistic understanding of men/women: the first time anyone has properly attempted to put forward a truly integrated account of human sociality, utilising all the latest lines of evidence in theory re male hierarchy, female ‘personal network’, the very different in-grouping according to sex, and pair-bonding.
Published as a monograph by the journal, New Male Studies, it’s available on Amazon in book and Kindle formats, and is open-access at the journal’s website.
The core argument is that all major aspects of male-female human sociality necessarily stem from biological principles; which all arise in solving the core problem faced by all life-forms: the relentless build-up of mistakes in the repeated copying of genes.
Explanation here has to be bottom-up, not top-down, because that is the direction of causation: all else is feedback, which in inherent in any system if it is to avoid breakdown. Culture – that is, the facility to have and behave in this way – could not have evolved unless its function is to feed back to and fine-tune the very underlying biology that gave rise to it. So the more complex the organism becomes, then the better it gets at being faithful to and expressing its biology. The notion that instead somehow we go off on a novel tangent and ‘escape’ biology is the very opposite of what happens.
To deal with all the accumulated gene replication error, the ‘bad’ genes somehow have to be filtered out, and this is the function of the male: why males came into being, and why men so fiercely compete with one another to form a hierarchy.
The female contribution to this ‘genetic filter’ mechanism is carefully to choose only the most dominant/prestigious males, cross-checking that indeed they do possess the best gene sets. This ensures genetic mutations and other errors that would seriously compromise reproduction are purged from the local gene pool.
With men tied to a hierarchy, women evolved to ‘marry out’ to avoid in-breeding. In preparation for this, girls have a very different social organisation, rehearsing for when later they have to make close bonds with non-kin, stranger-females for mutual child-care. This explains why female grouping is so tight and exclusionary, whereas males group all-inclusively.
Pair-bonding serves to exclude lower-ranked, whilst allowing access by still higher-ranked males; and to provide a serial father of children, thereby in effect projecting forward in time a woman’s peak fertility, compensating for her deteriorating store of eggs, and consequent declining fertility and attractiveness. But although this is clearly all in the female interest, the male also gets something out of ‘marriage’: a more fertile partner than he would be able to acquire for ‘no-strings’ (promiscuous) sex. It’s cross-sex bargaining.
The upshot is that there’s an underlying sex dichotomy, to be sure; but it’s perfectly complementary, with the sexes of equal importance in what amounts to a symbiosis.
google Michael Kuehl, women as “rapists” and “pedophiles,” debra lafave, mary letourneau, cassandra sorenson-grohall, “loony Wisconsin.” You’ll enjoy my articles.
Hi guys
Just-published is the journal-commissioned book, SEX DIFFERENCE EXPLAINED: From DNA to Society – Purging Gene Copy Errors, by Steve Moxon.
It’s a ‘bottom-up’ from biology, cutting-edge holistic understanding of men/women: the first time anyone has properly attempted to put forward a truly integrated account of human sociality, utilising all the latest lines of evidence in theory re male hierarchy, female ‘personal network’, the very different in-grouping according to sex, and pair-bonding.
Published as a monograph by the journal, New Male Studies, it’s available on Amazon in book and Kindle formats, and is open-access at the journal’s website.
The core argument is that all major aspects of male-female human sociality necessarily stem from biological principles; which all arise in solving the core problem faced by all life-forms: the relentless build-up of mistakes in the repeated copying of genes.
Explanation here has to be bottom-up, not top-down, because that is the direction of causation: all else is feedback, which in inherent in any system if it is to avoid breakdown. Culture – that is, the facility to have and behave in this way – could not have evolved unless its function is to feed back to and fine-tune the very underlying biology that gave rise to it. So the more complex the organism becomes, then the better it gets at being faithful to and expressing its biology. The notion that instead somehow we go off on a novel tangent and ‘escape’ biology is the very opposite of what happens.
To deal with all the accumulated gene replication error, the ‘bad’ genes somehow have to be filtered out, and this is the function of the male: why males came into being, and why men so fiercely compete with one another to form a hierarchy.
The female contribution to this ‘genetic filter’ mechanism is carefully to choose only the most dominant/prestigious males, cross-checking that indeed they do possess the best gene sets. This ensures genetic mutations and other errors that would seriously compromise reproduction are purged from the local gene pool.
With men tied to a hierarchy, women evolved to ‘marry out’ to avoid in-breeding. In preparation for this, girls have a very different social organisation, rehearsing for when later they have to make close bonds with non-kin, stranger-females for mutual child-care. This explains why female grouping is so tight and exclusionary, whereas males group all-inclusively.
Pair-bonding serves to exclude lower-ranked, whilst allowing access by still higher-ranked males; and to provide a serial father of children, thereby in effect projecting forward in time a woman’s peak fertility, compensating for her deteriorating store of eggs, and consequent declining fertility and attractiveness. But although this is clearly all in the female interest, the male also gets something out of ‘marriage’: a more fertile partner than he would be able to acquire for ‘no-strings’ (promiscuous) sex. It’s cross-sex bargaining.
The upshot is that there’s an underlying sex dichotomy, to be sure; but it’s perfectly complementary, with the sexes of equal importance in what amounts to a symbiosis.
Hello,
do you have an email address that I could write directly to?
Wanted to point out that the links in the following article are dead:
http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/racial-differences-intelligence/race-differences-in-intelligence-how-i-changed-my-mind
Have a good day.
Thanks for telling. It is a crime that Rushton’s web site plus his University site were left to die. Rushton’s works are now elsewhere.
I wish I had some helpers, I could get much more done. Fixing this fault, approving comments, writing more ….
Who are you? you have a lot of posts that sounds great, but as a brazilianpagan who stands for the sexual rights, I would like to know you better.
We have a few posts about Brazil. Feel free to comment there, or on other non-Brazil posts about the topics you like:
teenage sexuality and child porn
Brazil, unfortunately, is greatly curtailing sexual rights, prostitution, and, especially men’s rights.
What about misandrous women and the part they have played in American society
Hello Devil’s Advocate,
Awesome site! I was wondering, Do you know about, or participate on the blog called Playing the Devil’s Advocate by Advocatus Diaboli? I ask because you and he both call yourself the Devil’s Advocate, discuss highly related topics, and own a similar domain name (anti-stupidity.com vs. human-stupidity.com)?
google Michael Kuehl, women as “rapists” and “pedophiles,” debra lafave, mary letourneau, cassandra sorenson-grohall, “loony Wisconsin.” You’ll enjoy my articles.
Good Day
Can you please send me the detailed speech by Dr James David Manning regarding “Problem about Black Race”
Regards
Kabelo Tumelo