Saturday, September 17, 2016

Why Evo-Psych is a Joke

"...if my personal experience matches the findings of established science, I am more likely to be a believer. But if the science and my observations disagree, or science and common sense disagree, it triggers my B.S. detector." - Scott Adams

I was originally taught in college, by supposed "esteemed" professors, that men give love to get sex, and women use sex to get love. And women were monogamous because they needed a man to stay around to help raise their kids. And men were polygamous to "spread their seed."

Looking back to my high school and college days, I found I didn't believe this. For one thing, I met some very promiscuous women (and who they were attracted to had nothing with do with being an "Alpha") and I also found they were capable of multiple orgasms - as in having sex with five guys in a row. Why? It would have nothing to do with monogamy, that's for sure. It surely isn't to get the "genetically superior Alpha sperm" to improve your children.

What I realized quite early is that men are the real romantics, and women can be multi-orgasmic sluts. I suppose "Evo-Psych" will come up with some rationalization to "explain" this. Good luck with that.

It's amusing the way "science" can flip-flop when the facts prove wrong long-held theories. It proves they were completely wrong in the first place and yet teaching it with utter assurance.

Some time ago I read the book What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire by journalist Daniel Bergner. (I've written about this book before.)

Bergner pointed out that women's sexuality is not some sort of civilizing force, but instead a ravenous, animalistic, civilization-destroying force. Religion has understood this for thousands of years - read the stories of Lilith and Jezebel. Or Joseph and Potiphar's wife.

As for those who dismiss the Bible as being written thousands of years ago by cave-dwelling camel-jockeys...well, they're just plain stupid.

It's clear this is why there are such restrictions on female sexuality. For God's sake, I once had a Romanian hooker sit down next to me and stick her tongue in my ear! And that's the least of what has happened to me.

Now start with the facts - men romantics, women ravenous multi-orgasmic sluts, and then try to Evo-Psych that. You can't do it. You have to take in account that one of the purposes of civilization is to repress the worst of human nature. So there is no "human nature" separate from society.

As for those restrictions on females...here's what one researcher told Bergner: "Those barriers are a testament to the power of the drive itself. It’s a pretty incredible testament. Because the drive must be so strong to override all of that."

He also said, "Women’s desire — its inherent range and innate power — is an underestimated and constrained force, even in our times, when all can seem so sexually inundated, so far beyond restriction. Despite the notions our culture continues to imbue, this force is not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety...one of our most comforting assumptions, soothing perhaps above all to men but clung to by both sexes, that female eros is much better made for monogamy than the male libido, is scarcely more than a fairy tale."

Bergner also said this: "Well, I guess the first thing to say is how struck I was by the distance between reality and the fable that we’ve been taught most recently by evolutionary psychology, that is, that men are driven to spread their seed and women, by comparison, are more driven to find one good provider, and that, therefore, while men are very poorly suited to monogamy, women are much better suited to monogamy. But that just really doesn’t stand up when you look at the science. The science behind that is flimsy, circular. And the science, when you look at it clearly, that stands in opposition to that is actually fairly strong — still emergent, but fairly strong. And so, that was the first thing that was so striking to me."

This, among many other reasons, is why I am such a critic of the Manosphere. A lot of the concepts in it are fairy tales (I recently read an article that claimed the Alpha brain-waves produced by meditation meant the meditator was an "Alpha" in real life. That's just pathetic.)

Those adolescent concepts of Alpha/Beta, shit tests, "chicks dig the Dark Triad," etc...the only reason they believe them is because they read them somewhere. Are they scientific? Not even close. Cherry-picking and Fallacies of Composition are not science.

Someday all this nonsense will sort itself out. The sooner the better.

Oh, by the way, this almost sounds like this: the more promiscuous a woman is, the harder it will be for her to fall in love. I've seen that...just the way I've seen a 13-year-old do five guys in a row.

13 comments:

The Damage Dealing Meat Shield said...

Some of the problems I've noticed with Evo-Pysch are:

1) they seem bent on obtaining a single reason to describe a human behavior. They fail to realize that human behaviors are dynamic and not static as they would want us to believe.

2)For some reason, from what I've read, is they ignore the last 50,000 years of human development. And don't give any reason as to why they ignore that.

3) When I first heard the term "evolutionary-psychology," I thought it was bizarre that someone wanted to merged a hard science, evolution, with a soft science, psychology. Psychology has made strides in creating means to help people, but it is subjective. For instance, in electrical engineering, one can determine which frequencies will pass, the time delay, power consumed in a resistive-capacitive electronic filter. But in psychology we know that if a parent yells at their kid for an hour every two days, the kid could grow up with mild mental problems or they could wind up with a full blown personality problem. Pyschology hasn't determined what the definitive outcomes are for various scenarios.

And my last comment about evo-psych isn't about the subject, but the people who use it to validate their thinking and/or existence. I've seen it used a lot by MGTOWs, PUAs, maanosphere, and Lie-bertarians all the time. They use it to not only validate their warped thinking, but also to create this impression that they have this air of authority on a subject. Anyone truly paying attention to these yahoos, know that when they quote Evo-Pysch, it doesn't give them authority, it makes them look foolish and pathetic. It also shows their lack of real world experiences.

Robert What? said...

Bob, what do you think of the hypothesis of r/K behavior? I can't say I am well read on either evo-psych or r/K. But it seems like evo-psych concepts are valid during K times (limited resources) while we are currently in r times in the US. Ie, free and nearly unlimited resources. Well, "free" because of the forced largess of the productive, taxpaying classes.

Baloo said...

What about the book _Sociobiology_? And the Culture of Critique series?

Black Poison Soul said...

Just have to read the women's fantasies in "My Secret Garden" to realize how slutty even the most "normal-seeming" woman can be.

"What do women want?" I may add that to my pile of books to read.

AAB said...

The Damage Dealing Meat Shield said...
Some of the problems I've noticed with Evo-Pysch are:

1) they seem bent on obtaining a single reason to describe a human behavior. They fail to realize that human behaviors are dynamic and not static as they would want us to believe.


Yeah that seems to be a unfortunate problem with lots of people in that they try to reduce all problems of the world, or causes of the world, to a single factor, or try and use a single system (e.g. evo-pysch, biology, economics) to explain the world. The world's more complicated than one single theory.

Thane Eichenauer said...

I have listened to Joe Rogan interview Gad Sadd. If anybody has any comments about him (Saad) I would find that to be interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDhtTHP16aA

Anonymous said...

Sorry, your entry rubbish. I'm not a fan of the "dumbed down" evopscyh you see on the manosphere, but I've read legitimate books like "The Moral Animal" and you're completely off. Plus your alternate explanation just boils down to "wimmin are evil sluts" so fits right in with the manosphere anyway

Here's where you're wrong:

---

1. Evopsych doesn't say that women are completely monogamous. So your rebuttal about "having seen women who are huge sluts in real life" fails. Plus good psychology doesn't claim to be able to predict behavior with 100% accuracy; it's not an exact science like physics.
(It wouldn't explain why Buddhist monks practice sexual abstinence, for example).

Not all human behavior is dictated by biological impulses anyway, since we have a rational side of our brain that lets us make logical choices - but that doesn't mean the impulses don't play a role.

2. The "five orgasms" claim just backs up evopsych - basically, when sperm enters the woman's orifice, the sperm cells literally compete with and kill each other, and the "strongest" is the one that fertilizes the egg. So this bacs of the notion of some men being perceived as more "fit" or "alpha" than others for various reasons.

3. Neither men and women are inherently monogamous by default, but their sexualities work differently. If women are satisfied by their lover (e.x. which implies that he has strong virility, and therefore "high quality sperm") then they are less likely to have a desire to "sleep around". If they aren't sexually satisfied (e.x their partner is unromantic or bad in bed) they'll be tempted to have an affair to acquire "better sperm".

Men however are "more polyamorous" by default since they can fertilize multiple women. Even if a man is completely satisfied with the woman he's with, he'll still have the impulse to "sow more seed" on the side, and have to actively use more self-control to remain monogamous.

This is why you hear about men like Arnold Schwarzenegger cheating with obese women who are much less attractive than their wives - because men are hardwired to "want more partners" even if the one they have is fine.

You don't hear about many women who are married to guys like Brad Pitt cheating with guys who looks like Newman from Seinfeld - because as long as a woman feels her partner is virile enough, she won't have an impulse to "seek out affairs" just for the sake of it. If his behavior stops being attractive to her though, then she'll be tempted to seek out new ones.

Hence why men have to be the "romantics" rather than women - because women are harder to sexually please than men since they're attracted more to his virile, and less just whether her or not she's physically capable of carrying his sperm.

So your claim about men being the real romantics or seducers just backs up evopsych rather than rebuts it.

(Continued)

Anonymous said...

(Continued)


4. It's pretty much common sense why societies have been more repressive to female sexuality than male sexuality - because women [i]can get pregnant[/i], and men can't. And for most of history there was no effective birth control, no welfare system, etc in check to take care of bastard children - so the child might starve to death, the woman might die in childbirth, etc.

Not to mention in cultures such as ancient Israel, the family and inheritance were much more culturally important than they are today, so if a man had suspicions that a child was conceived by someone other than himself it could have huge ramifications, especially in as far as thing such as birthright were concerned. Women also didn't have jobs and couldn't afford to take care of the child on their own either. So yeah, women who were lose were viewed as more evil than men who were, since they were directly endangering the potential offspring and "dishonoring" their family.

So none of this rebuts evopsych at all - and rather than your paranoid conspiracy theory about how it has to do with the "wimmin and their wicked wiles" or whatever, it could be the simple fact that women get pregnant and men don't - and a pregnant woman in ancient Israel couldn't just waltz down to the welfare office and ask Uncle Sam to fit the bill.

5. Basically, throughout history there has always been a social balance between individual desires and self-denial for the greater good (such as age of consent laws that prohibit sex with teenagers even if they're biologically capable of breeding).

Monogamy is basically a "cap" on human's natural desires because it's viewed as the most stable and healthy environment for childbearing. Again this doesn't contradict evopsych.

So sorry, but this entry is a joke since not only is it just an anti-woman rant but it was follow of strawmen and doesn't show any knowledge of subject itself.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, forgot to add that society also knew that male's sexual desire could lead to them doing destructive things (and that some women could manipulate men intentionally) - we see this with men throwing their lives away in duels, or entire wars being started (e.x. Helen of Troy).

And again, no conflict with evopsych here, just more validation - since men have to "work harder" to find an available partner this makes perfect sense (while nearly any woman can "get laid" as long as she's willing to spread her legs).

But also, it takes two to tango - if your logic is that this proves that "all wimmin folks is evil witches who manipulate men" then by the same logic it's not a pedophile's fault if he molests little girls' it's the 5 year old girls' fault for wearing some "really hot pampers".

A guy who has no self-respect and lets himself be manipulated by some skank just hoping to get mediocre sex once a year on his birthday is completely pathetic and not a real "man" to begin with, just a sad little bitch who settles for an equally sad little bitch wife, both of whom deserve each other.

When I think of real men, I think of men like George Washington who risked life and limb to get his men safely through the winter of Valley Forge - so any loser who lets his wife manipulate him into taking a second job just to buy her trinkets in exchange for mediocre sex once in awhile barely deserves the word "man" to begin with.

That's why your blog post sucks, it's just an argument for victimhood and against personal responsibility.

Take The Red Pill said...

"...Oh, by the way, this almost sounds like this: the more promiscuous a woman is, the harder it will be for her to fall in love."

"You can't make a whore into a housewife", no more than you can make a pickle back into a cucumber.

Anonymous said...

Anony September 23, 2016 at 11:02 PM...

You're an idiot.

"Men however are "more polyamorous" by default since they can fertilize multiple women."

It has nothing to do with fertilization. It has everything to do with trying to lay every women in sight for pleasure.

"Even if a man is completely satisfied with the woman he's with, he'll still have the impulse to "sow more seed" on the side, and have to actively use more self-control to remain monogamous."

The impulse is to have sex for pleasure, thus the man must control that impulse in light of society's consequences for sex outside of marriage.

"This is why you hear about men like Arnold Schwarzenegger cheating with obese women who are much less attractive than their wives - because men are hardwired to "want more partners" even if the one they have is fine."

Men are hardwired to have sex outside of marriage if they believe they can get away with it.

Anonymous said...

"It has nothing to do with fertilization. It has everything to do with trying to lay every women in sight for pleasure."

No crap, and the "pleasure" comes from the biological impulse. Since to the animal part of our brain, sex is the primary purpose for our existence. This is why we find it pleasurable, since even animals want a "purpose" for existing.

"The impulse is to have sex for pleasure, thus the man must control that impulse in light of society's consequences for sex outside of marriage. Men are hardwired to have sex outside of marriage if they believe they can get away with it."

Polyamory is the biological norm - most ancient cultures practiced polygamy. But some cultures decided to limit marriage to just 1 woman for various reasons, such as familial stability.

Men have sex outside of marriage because monogamy is not the biological norm, it's a construct of society (which isn't necessarily a bad thing in itself - age of consent laws are also constructed by society, despite biology not distinguishing between the 'ages').


Anonymous said...

Seems that most of those who object to these facts are those who still don't understand the difference between the subconscious, biological impulses like sex, and the conscious, logical part of the brain.

If people were perfectly logical, they would never have sex unless they wanted children. The reason the desire to have sex is strong even when it serves no practical purpose is due to the subconscious, animal part of the brain just running on autopilot.

No one sits downs and thinks "Hm, at 9:30 today I'm planning on taking a shit" - they just take a shit because the body tells them it needs to go to the bathroom.