Moderation Questions

I looked up current research last night. From what I can see there were periods if male bias and periods of female bias, but I saw no support for the 2:1 number other than the paper that Luciom cited, which is from 2004 before a lot of the breakthroughs in sequencing we have.

You didn't bring up Genghis Khan. coordi did. I still don't know what Genghis Khan has to do with some 80/40 ratio, but whatever.

Italy is of course the fons et origo of Fascism, but wasn't that reparatory marriage law peculiar to Italy? I'm not sure why it should concern the rest of us. And doing the opposite of what the Fascists did in all cases may not make sense. The Nazis' Autobahns have been widely copied. Also, of course:--

https://www.americanscientist.org/articl...

Studies that linked smoking to lung cancer were first done in the Third Reich, not least because Hitler hated smoking and loved telling people what they could and couldn't do and also loved the whole prescriptive idea of 'cutting the cancers out of society.' But you wouldn't want to chuff yourself to death just because Hitler wouldn't like it.

For Lucio, everything is fascism except actual fascism, which he thinks is great.

Lots of cool stuff in here today, guys! The Roman Empire, Genghis Khan, and BOY math! Wowzers!

indeed he did and i was responding to him, whoopsies

You can change us though, just think of us as if we were bears

I don’t think we’re trying to change you anymore. I think we’re just leaving you all behind except for the top 20% or whatever who will be invited to the orgies

Geneticist Dr Steve Jones, who used to be one of the British media's go-to scientists, and won a Faraday Prize for furthering the public understanding of science -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jone...) -- used to like claiming that one British person in five was descended from King Edward III. (I think just using a theoretical model of the way genes spread out through populations.)

He may not have been one of the idiots who claimed that all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne, but I'm afraid I've been dubious about him ever since he repeatedly made the claim, both on TV and on radio (it was clearly his party piece), that the most important invention in British genetic history was the bicycle, because it enabled people to marry outside their home villages.

The slight wee problem in Steve's clever conceit is that the modern 'safety bicycle' -- the bike as we know it, with equal-size wheels, chain drive and pneumatic tyres, as opposed to the obviously dangerous penny-farthing -- was only invented in the 1890s and was significantly costly. Whereas, no less than half a century before that, as famous 'scientific expert' Dr Steve totally forgot, a quite different invention had already revolutionised society and brought about the flight from the countryside and the growth of towns and suburbs, with potentially large genetic consequences, that invention being... the steam railway. A really rather large thing to overlook.

Experts in one particular field often deludedly imagine that their mere status makes them expert in all fields. Which they aren't. And anyway, for that reason among others, 'pop science' is generally bunk.

It remains a sad fact that, as far as we know, no living person is descended from William Shakespeare. But it's not like they'd be geniuses anyway, because that form of lightning really doesn't strike twice. The Duke of Wellington has a number of living descendants, yet none is a great general and the best-known is the actor and singer Jeremy Clyde --

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Clyde

en

Jeremy Clyde - Wikipedia

You can't figure out why I preemptively shot down the "Genghis Khan has 16 million direct descends" statistic while shooting down 80%/40%?

you can't change him coordi - best go back to the bear

If not incel, why incel shaped? ^

in all seriousness, i'm probably one of the most successful daters on the forum in terms of quality and quantity of partners and you're just going to have to take my word for that because it's very distasteful to "show receipts" even if done over pm

however, i'm one of the least successful if we measure using the ghengis khan method though so there's also that as a counterweight - but that's more to do from active choices of lifestyle deciding to spend my 30s traveling across the globe (only went to usa to visit family or attend weddings that entire time) where i never had permanent roots anywhere

much of my "online persona" is mostly pushback against the absurd kumbaya leftist virtue signaling done here - it's to the point that I, a lifelong democrat who has never once voted republican in my life is considered a conservative on this forum and you view me as a misogynistic monster because i'm happy to openly discuss online a lot of things most men would only say quietly amongst close friends in the locker room

one of the biggests icks i get in life is witnessing the double lives most men lead - where they say one thing when women are present and another when they aren't - this sadly gives a lot of women false understandings of men and who they are - case in point you are or at least were at one point friends with david sklansky - he was able to mask how much of a monster he was from you whereas i simply state "i know a lot of high quality single women my age who are not single due to lack of options but because they are unwilling to settle" and you think that somehow means i'm worse than whatever you thought (or still think) of him

fact is if we ever met in person and you didn't know you were talking to rickroll, i'm should you'd leave the encounter thinking you just met a pretty awesome guy

I believe you Rickroll

Facepalm

I mean, ftr, I am aware of the double lives men lead. I didn’t come up with the misandry on my own.

And seriously, don’t do that again with the Sklansky reference. It’s a cheap shot. You haven’t the slightest ****ing hint of a clue what I went through back then.

Crossnerd is probably going to tell me that personal experience isn't the point, but I'm going to plow ahead anyway.

I'm not in high school any more. I don't know a bunch of men who behave very differently around women than they do around men. And if you (generic you, not you rickroll) find that you are behaving very differently around women than you are around men, then you probably aren't doing it right.

Here's a wild idea. Forget for a moment whether you are talking to a man or a woman. Just be yourself. And if women don't like the "real" you, then maybe the real you needs an adjustment.

Measuring dating "success" by how many people you have ****ed and how attractive they were (all things considered) is a poor starting point imo.

There is no "us", there is no "you all", only individuals and families.

The betas or worse are already losing.

But all women lose here, because even the very top won't find solace as the alpha will pass them around anyway.

It's not random that women are suffering mentally a lot more than men from modernity.

Tbh it's not about "agreeing".

It's about understanding what humanity is.

Everyone alive today exists solely as the offspring of violent rapists who assassinated other males to get the women. Multiple times. Like 10-20 times over 30-50k years for each of us at least.

Then ofc OTHER talents as well (cooperation to assassinate others better for example, or to extract more resources from land and so on) were selected for as well sure.

Pretty sure you all know the only reason we kept get selection for intelligence was outplaying other human beings right? And we only stopped because the size of the head of the child was already so big it caused too many maternal deaths?

It's not like we need our intelligence to survive in the environment. **** erectus was already dominating his environment.

Everything after that we developed to extract resources from other people within our group, or to out-strategize other human groups (the only "predator" in nature that can do anything meaningful to us) and genocide them.

But we all exist because our ancestors were mass rapists and genociders. And that's who won the game of life and reproduced.

Now you either hate yourself because of it (and plenty of people do hate themselves for many reasons) or you fully accept that if your life has inherent value and you solely exists thanks to rapists, murderers and assassins, maybe it's not that bad inherently to be a murderer a rapist and an assassin.

We want to direct those pulsions toward good uses not to deny they exist or to insist they are "bad". Nothing can be bad if it's the reason I exist, if I value myself.

You come across as very insecure and I can’t imagine most desirable women being at all interested in the endless and invented boasting you do here.

It's not a "double life" to avoid telling women in your life what you think. it's called "how our grandparents didn't kill each other".

Why would you need "an adjustment" if women didn't like some aspects of the "real you" and went crazy about that, while men are more able to make a "net" calculation and keep you if on net you are good for them?

in your rush to virtue signal, you missed out on the fact that i was saying that's one of the biggest icks in life for me and i don't respect men who do that and never do that myself

and i honestly.... i think you're too stand up of a guy to lie here, but i think you're not paying much attention and/or living a very sanitized life that wouldn't expose you to some of the seedier habits or commentary of your male friends and i hope it's not paying attention because i can't imagine living a life where you'd never ever witness someone saying or doing something they wouldn't have done if their partner was present simply because that's such a common part of day to day life that i can't imagine what kind of shut in recluse you must be to never witness it

i have a hard time believing you have no male friends who go to strip clubs without telling their wives

nor have friends that won't mention the amazing rack on the woman who works at the golf course while you are teeing off whereas if the wives were there you'd discuss how nice the weather is

i actually go through great pain to self select partners for whom i wouldn't need to hide anything simply because i refuse to do so

ie i've been to a strip club 3 times in my life - each time it was as part of a large social gathering - ie bachelor party or some other special occasion - but i know a situation like that will probably come up in the future at some point and i wouldn't ever want to have to hide that.

so early on in the dating process i'll ask questions about that stuff - which causes them some ick thinking i'm addicted to strip clubs etc because they never got questions like this from other dating prospects before so it can cause some needless friction at the start but i think that helps filter out prospects who wouldn't be a good long term fit so i stick with it and it's been pretty liberating after some initial friction

it's not a good measurement for dating success ie happiness and building a family with someone - hence why i included the ghengis khan counterpoint, but amount and quality of partners it is a very good measurement for ones ability to attract a partner - which was more of the point to counterweight cn's "only an incel would think that" posts directed towards me