10. Like parents like children.
This is not too surprising. However, this is the essence of all evolutionary psychology. What are humans’ natures? Well what are their ancestors’ natures?
What are their ancestors’ natures? Just look in the past and try to figure out what kind of people used to become ancestors? Those are the kind that reproduced well in the past. That’s our nature now.
9. Anything that makes you feel good are things that made your
ancestors feel good too.
Because you are descendants of ancestors that beget children, you share the same preference with people that beget children. Hence, we can predict that anything that makes you feel good are the kind of things that tend to make you beget children too. Sex is the obvious sample. Quality of sex partner is also another one.
Quantity of sex partner (for male) will be other less obvious ones. So is eating good food. Things that make you feel bad are things that’ll drive you extinct.
So get hit, having your family died, being poor, etc.
8. Males prefer the pretty.
Males that prefer pretty women produce prettier more attractive daughters that attract richer males that sleep with more women and produce more kids.
Beauty signals high quality genes. Also women need to stay healthy and young to beget children. Males that prefer young pretty women survive better in the gene pools. Most of us are descendants of males with that preference.
Women are getting prettier thanks to evolution and porn. Sample maidens with 1,056 LIVE TV CHANNELS on Your PC!
so you can compare what’s available with your current girl friend/spouse/mate. See if you can do better.
7. Women prefer the rich.
This one is not too surprising. Cars have chick magnet depending on their price. Price of liquors in night clubs are way higher on supermarket because drinking in night club signal wealth to women.
Again same pattern. Women that preferred the rich had more grandchildren and current women are descendants of such women.
This is the interesting part. If I like a woman because she is pretty, will I become prettier? No. I like pretty women because I am a descendant of males that like pretty women. Prettier women have better genes that I will inherit to my kids.
The beneficiary is actually my offspring, not me, but I feel like getting hot babes. Instinctively by following my emotion, I not only benefit my self, but my offspring too. Inheriting good genes to ones’ kid is what I call responsible parenting. Make sure your mate is hot.
If women like a tall man, will she be taller? No. She likes taller men because taller men will produce taller kids that will attract more women.
If women like richer males, will she be richer? Yes. But even if that’s not the case, she still has plenty of intensive to like richer males. Maybe richer males have more common sense. Maybe richer males are smarter. Those traits are inherited. Wealth, like height, and beauty, also signal genetic quality.
This is why super-hot stars like Salma Hayek, with no problem getting any males she wants, pick a billionaire that also sleep around with so many other women. That’s how basketball stars sleep with so many women that they do not pay.
All of us instinctively want the best for our offspring. About 50% of that comes from picking higher quality mates. We think we do it for our self, but we’re actually doing it for our offspring. Things that make us feel good are things that are indeed good, not just for us, but for our family and offspring.
Governments would often argue that marriage is what’s “best” for children. Think about it. Your government would probably one day kill your children. Ask the Jews. What do governments care or know about your children? However, through evolution, we are programmed by our genes to provide the best for our children. That means picking the highest quality mates even if that means having to share.
Help me monetize chinese babes. Marry them here. Oh okay marriage sucks. But do hang out anyway
Punish males in countries that don’t embrace free market. Woo all their hottest babes to your country instead. Spread freeedddoommmmmm, truth and justice!!!!! The market way.
6. We’re not just selfish, we’re also greedy.
If we have to choose among many women, we will choose all.
We’re not descendants’ monks and virgins. We are not descendants of those who are not greedy. The greedier a person, the more likely he’ll inherit something to the gene pool.
The same way those with few kids contribute little to our gene pool. Most of our genes are contributed by warlords that kill millions and knocked up thousands. The greedy are the one inheriting the earth. Blessed be the greedy, selfish, manipulative, and jerks because their kind is inheriting the world for like 8 k years. It’s not until Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations things change a little bit.
Just like successful sperms are not those that live the longest. Successful sperms are those who greedily grab the egg depriving all other sperms for the same chance.
The same way, successful males are not the one living the longest but those knocking up the most beautiful girls while depriving other males out of the same chance through any means.
5. Many humans are not just selfish and greedy, they’re also bigotic and humans will kill each other, especially the innocent.
Evil yes. Inhuman? What is human?
Make sure your children and loved ones live. Read Gene Pool Survival Guide
written by a Mensa member sold by 2co
Because males are greedy, every single males that got another women would mean the other don’t get any. Hence, deep inside, we sort of want others to fail, especially those far better than us.
This explains all pogroms against more successful and peaceful minorities group all over the world. From Jewish holocaust, Armenian genocide, to pogroms against bourgeois in PRC and Rusia. Being innocent won’t help. Those people die not despite their innocence. They died because they don’t fight back enough. They died because they earned money honestly and peacefully only to have all that snatched by those with something people should have aimed for more: power.
Why the bigots don’t aim for tyrants? After all tyrants are evil. Tyrants control the media. Tyrants are cruel and manipulative. Tyrants are filthy rich. Tyrants sell their country. Tyrants are not nationalists. Tyrants are jerks. Tyrants are cruel. So why not lash out at tyrants? The truth is, tyrants are tough to mess with. If you fight a tyrant, you die. So people aim for softer target. Innocent nice guys.
You don’t have to be as evil as tyrants to enjoy the benefit of being evil. In US, criminals enjoy first class health care. Good guys just die in droves and they’re just statistics. Yet many would go the extra mile to prevent one murderer and serial killers to avoid death penalty. People are afraid of and hence respect bad guys. Good guys are often not that lucky. Obviously human need to maintain the opposite reputation. But that’s often what human’s nature are.
Deep inside, those bigots knew they’re aiming at innocent. Deep inside, they also knew that it doesn’t matter anyway. What matters is that they got their veneer and can maintain image of being just. That’s it.
One of my vets told us that humans are the most evil animal. “Lions will stop killing when he’s full,” he said. I checked on lions. A male lion that already got 8 wives, will still deprive other lions from getting any. When a male killed another male lion, the victor will kill all the losing lion’s children.
Yea, lion is not greedy for money. But money simply don’t help lions reproduce. They’re greedy for everything else that matter, including lioness and territory.
No. We’re not the most evil animal. We’re just like everyone else.
4. Monogamy correlates very positively with democracy.
Basically most males are “better” of preventing an alpha male from getting too many women. Under democracy, interests of “most males” prevail.
While Christians often argue that the bible is in favor of monogamy, torah are not build by a democratic culture. Hence, we would expect polygamy to be common and tolerated during biblical time, which we did. We also predict that Greek and Romans, which are democratic, to be the original practitioners of monogamy either, which we did.
Until today, democracy, rather than any religions, predicts intolerance against polygamy far more than religions or culture.
That being said, polygamy cultures tend to be authoritarian. After all, shagless males would do anything to get laid, including committing suicide bombing to get virgins. Hence, penalty must be harsh to keep them inline.
3. Marriages in democracy tend to financially devastate rich males
written by a Mensa member sold by 2co
Who makes marriage terms? The marrying couple? No. Your competitors that want to bang that same girl create marriage terms. They have their own interests and that’s often the opposite of your interest or your spouse interests. One of their interests is to make sure that best selling men, don’t sell too much.
Just ask Beaty Chadwick that rot in jail for 14 years for not paying $2 million to his wife.
Think about it. Imagine if a rich male can get a lot of women without risking his whole wealth? Then rich men will just grab more and more women and the rest will have to settle for the ugly.
By marrying a beautiful girl, you have taken one women out of the mating market. The other males just want to ensure you don’t take more. Of course, you can still get more. However, there is no way you can do it openly. In arab you can do it openly, but only if you’re politically powerful and is in favor of whoever in power.
At the ends, power, not individual rights, that matter more on things that are truly important, like mating selection. Next, we would predict that people want to be in power and that they will kill each other for that, which is of course, true.
2. The more a rich smart male can effectively sleep with women without risking his whole wealth, the more politically incorrect it is.
You name it. How a rich man can use their money to persuade women to sleep without risking his whole wealth? The three main ways to do it are prostitution, contract marriage, and polygamy. All are illegal.
The politically correct ways are marriage, well that means risking his whole wealth. The next best way is free sex. That is also very politically incorrect in most countries.
Also males tend to make more money and women tend to stay at home raising children. So it’s kind of strange to expect a rich male to work hard all his life to make money and not spending it for women that choose him and his children. However, marriage terms tend to aim to destroy wealth rather than to support any women or children.
Reproduction is artificially costly in democratic countries for rich males and artificially cheap for poor males. Rich males pay child support and alimony proportional to his wealth. However, reproduction is artificially cheap for the poor due to subsidies. This explains why the poor breed more kids than the rich. It’s naturally predicted by evolution theory because humans want to get rid those richer than them out of the gene pool. Most people do not like supermen walking.
In general, the more attractive an offer someone make, the more politically incorrect it is. That’s why porn is illegal, because males prefer the pretty and pretty women showing her beauty is very attractive.
That’s why consensual women trafficking and international romance is politically incorrect. That’s because women from poorer countries give more attractive offers than women from richer countries that tend to be more expensive.
And that’s the same reason why prostitution is illegal. Because rich men that pays is way too attractive for lesser males that don’t.
1. The more consensual alternatives are available besides marriage legally, the less marriage there will be
Pro marriage religious group tend to argue that we need to protect marriage from other consensual alternatives. Finally they said something that make sense.
Marriage does need defending and government does need to define marriage for purpose of marriage to work.
What they didn’t tell you is that the purpose of marriage is not to serve your best interest but theirs. Hence, without protection against other consensual alternatives, marriage will disappear.
Their normal explanation doesn’t make sense. If marriage is the best and, we know our genes program us to want the best for our self and our offspring, why does marriage need protection from consensual alternatives? Best product do not need protection from competition.
When did American’s holy wood movies ask for protection from foreign competitors? When did Microsoft or Coca Cola asked government to be protected from competitors? Those who provide true value don’t need such protection. Their competitors can’t compete with them anyway. But marriage does, because marriage can’t compete.
Think about it, outside marriage, you, rather than your competitors, write your own deal. Of course it’s more attractive.
It’s like importing goods from china. Of course consumers pick that. Yea your local supplier won’t like that, but who care? Once they no longer have power to prevent you from picking better offers, of course, you pick better ones.
This is very surprising. Again and again religious group argue that no women would want to be prostitute unless they are forced too. Again and again politicians say that they need to protect young people from sex outside marriage.
People imply that marriage is the best for you and that’s what you want anyway while making alternatives illegal.
Of course, if alternatives are illegal, it’s hard to say which one humans truly prefer.
However evolutionary psychology predict that the very things people want to prohibit are the very things that are too attractive. That means, given choice, people would choose sex outside marriage.
And that’s what we observe.
When no fault divorce becomes easy, for example, divorce rate simply skyrocket.
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%
So all this time marriage sucks. However, they stay together because they
can’t get out of it.
Now 46% of babies are born outside marriage in US.
0. Women that opposes consensual exploitation of women as sex objects are usually relatively uglier
This one is pretty obvious. People opposes consensual acts mainly to get rid superior competition. Beautiful girls displaying her superior desirability set a new industry standard the rest must follow. In totally victimless ways, pretty girls drive the rest extinct. It’s very understandable then that ugly women would want to drive hot babes out of mating market through any devious and vicious means.
-1. Justification of prohibition against consensual alternatives will often be “religious” in nature
Religious people often say that they forcefully enforce their value out of compassion, to set us straight from what’s harmful to us. Really?
Game theory predicts that people will be honest on cooperative games and deceptive on zero sum game. When it comes to competition, the zero sum aspects predominate and people will lie.
How do you lie? How do you convince people to believe something that’s not true?
Science? Well some science is a lie. However, those lies are scrutinized day and night. Scientific opinions are not usually protected from freedom of speech. People do not get their head chopped off for stop believing in evolution theory.
Scientific theory must produce clear unambiguous conclusions that can be disproved. It’s not easy to do so if the theory is false.
It’s hard to lie with science. It’s far easier to lie with religions.
In fact, the evolutionary costs of believing lies are often low enough it’s often advantageous to lie even to ones’ own self it it can help to convince others to believe the same lies. That’s often what people will do when the lies changes the focal Nash equlibrium to an area they people desire.
Often, truth are simply too complicated, the the only way to counter a lie effectively is by making a bigger lie. That’s how people kill each other to decide which lies are truth.
We would predict that opposition against consensual private relationship to have vague language or heavy religious backing. In fact, we would expect any politically significant aspects of life with huge zero sum aspects to have heavy vague languages and heavy religious backing. From who should rule, to who should have the land, and who are allowed to mate with who, we would expect that religions will evolve a lot on those areas.
So, far from religions predicting humans behavior, proper understanding of humans’ nature help us to see the nature of religions.
written by a Mensa member
Or watch other boring blogs below. They’re free. Yea your time is cheap.