Something has been bothering me a lot recently. The fundamental assumptions of equality.
I found an evolutionary basis for inequality.
Let’s play god for a moment, shall we? Let’s design a system for making a creature that will optimize trait X.
Abiogenesis only makes the simplest RNA strands and organic molecules, so that is right out.
Unicellular division isn’t a bad answer, but multicellular organisms confer such great benefits that it is unlikely to be the best bet.
Asexual reproduction is pretty good, but what if two different creatures have mutations that could synergize to create something even better? Asexual reproduction seems to favor local maxima of niche filling, and doesn’t facilitate maxima shifting much at all. And what if there is a negative mutation? That line is forever worsened. So let’s have sex.
Sexual reproduction seems to be a nice solution.
You know what would be even better? Multisexual reproduction, but we’ll get to that later. For now, let’s focus on why sexual reproduction is so dang good.
Growth and development is a hard task- we could consolidate the energy required in to a small package and put that next to the embryo, in a hard shell. But for larger creatures, egg nests could become unwieldy and because moving to follow herd of prey, or running from predators is so useful, let’s make the zygote move with the parents. Well, we can’t choose both, so let’s divide them into the “Gestational Parent (GP)” and “Non-gestational Parent (NGP)”. This has the unfortunate effect of meaning the GP now has a large investment of time for each gestation. Because of this, a certain form of calculus must be developed.
Sexual Discrimination.
Evolution Favors the Harem
Sexual discrimination, here used to mean the process by which a GP sifts through the NGPs to select an optimal investment, allows the GP to make an informed decision on how they use their time- will they optimize for X or not? We’re playing god, so let’s give them some incentive to optimize for X. We fiat X attractive to them.
So now the GP wants X, and can discriminate between NGPs to get better X. Great system, right? That should ratchet up X quite nicely.
Well, there is one little adjustment we could make- nature is ruthless, and the faster that the little organisms evolve to fit their environment, the better, so slow evolution is punished. We could speed up evolution by increasing the genetic variability of the organisms, right? Right! Increased genetic variability means a better chance of getting the genes for X into existence. Though this runs into a problem- if we just increase mutation rates across the board, then unfavorable traits are also chosen to propagate- they will eventually die off due to being ill-fitted to the world we’ve created, but that is a waste of resources.
What if we just made the NGPs mutate faster, and the GPs mutate less? That tool of sexual discrimination means that the GP can select only the best NGPs- since mutation rates would be distributed on a Bell-curve, simply by their nature, the top fraction would be chosen by the NGPs to continue. The more we increase the mutation rates, the more we optimize the expression of X- though we run in to the problem of waste yet again. If only one of the NGPs fertilizes all the GPs, then not only does the next generation would essentially start to inbreed, all having the same parent NGP, but all the NGPs that weren’t the best become wasted resources!
Obviously, the solution is to cut back on the genetic variation, so we can have multiple high-X NGPs and have the GPs chose a large minority group of NGPs to mate with. This system ensures the population as a whole is constantly improving X. Low-mutation NGPs ensure the population is maintaining X, while high-mutation GPs ensure an increasing pressure on X. This is essentially what we see in nature- the “alpha male” gets to impregnate most of the females, being the greatest expression of X in that generation, but the majority of the females also have a decently high expression of X. Nature favors a limited harem.
Based on this system, we would expect that for any given trait that we want to optimize, GP expression of the trait should look be a narrower Bell-curve, and NGP’s a broader one. To wit, we should expect men to be represented at the extremes of society- the smartest, but also the dumbest. The strongest, but also the weakest. Men should represent both the best and worst expression of X.
To further clarify this, let us pretend we have some way to measure X. Let us then normalize the results such that a “normal” representation of X is 100. Let us, for the sake of argument, say NGPs have twice the rate of mutation, σ = 15 for NGPs, σ = 7.5 for GPs. This is obviously an overstatement of what the distribution is, but the following graph is merely offered as an example of the distribution.
Notably, this theory doesn’t claim “Men are smarter than women” or “Women are smarter than men.” In fact quite the opposite- My claim is that under this proposed rational, when taken on aggregate, men and women should be equally intelligent, though this doesn’t account for other factors pushing that equality around.
This is also the root cause, I assert, of the gender disparities in the upper echelons of any field. We should not expect these to be perfectly gender balanced. Further, it introduces in interesting situation. If something requires a high expression of X, we would expect it to be primarily done by males. As that thing begins to require less X, we should see women drastically overtake men. Before the next example, I would like to restate that X is not IQ. As far as I know, IQ isn’t even on the human allosome, so there is no reason to believe this- I just want to describe a mechanism here. Look at college gender ratios throughout the years.
This graph could be explained really quite simply if we view it as higher education becoming easier on expression of X. If we say degree attainment is purely a function of expression of X, then this graph is almost perfectly explained by a shift in the amount of X required- from X expression of 113 to 106. As any desirable function involving X goes from high to medium requirement of X, we should see the same phenomenon. Not only should women overtake men in any return-to-mean scenario, the total population attaining it should go up as well.
You're disregarding inclusive fitness.
...
Civilization favors monogamy
Gas yourself, OP.
True, I'm basing this on a very reduced biological system. How would you correct for it?
By you killing yourself.
This is how nature works. I'm not saying this is how it should be, simply how evolution functions.
the male allosome appears to be nearly 5 times as prone to mutation than the female. I’m no geneticist, but let’s say the female mutation rate is “10”. It is closer to 1 in 30 million, but I want to illustrate a ratio, not an absolute figure. If we assume the 22 other chromosome pairs have the same mutation rate, though there is evidence that males have higher mutation rates on nearly every chromosome, then the male would have a mutation rate 20% higher – let’s call it 12. The graph that follows should be the expected expression of any allosome based X.
Remarkably, if we then use this “Distribution of X” and search for real-world application, one immediately jumps out at us. In the first part I know I claimed X has nothing to do with intelligence- and I’m still not making that claim, rather, I would now assert that it may follow a similar mutation relationship.
Men with IQs at 145 or above, the so-called “genius level”, outnumber women 8 to 1. If we look at what degree of X expression such a ratio would occur at, what do we find? It first occurs at 138- surprisingly close for a slap-dash “back of the envelope” graph. For a long time, the Nobel Prize has been accused of being sexist. Male Nobel Laureates outnumber female 5.43 to 1, this ratio occurs at 134.5 on the X expression graph. Estimated mean Nobel Laureate IQ is 134.
Why does this matter at all? Because we as a society have become afraid to be OK with nature. Some things may simply be the natural distribution of genetic mutation. In American culture, there is this pervasive need for equality- it is baked into us from an early age. All Men are Created Equal. The term “Men” obviously used in the poetic sense. So when we see a disparity, we feel the need to correct it, and assume the cause of said disparity is mal-intent. The idea that inequality is ever acceptable is anathema to the average American, and however noble we think the ideal to be, it simply, and unfortunately, isn’t true.
Civilization doesn't favour monogamy, distributed mating is what makes civilization possible to begin with. Lets the males work together than binds them to the future, instead of having them constantly fight over mates.
Just say nature
Kill yourself.
Numerous studies show that male behavior is heavily influenced by the operational sex ratio–or the ratio between fertile females and sexually active males. If male and female numbers are equal then the best strategy is for a male to find a female, pair off, and protect/provide for his own kids.
If there are more fertile females than males, the best mating strategy for males is to put less resources caring for their kids and more resources trying to mate with multiple females. (note l: urban blacks in America fall into this category because of the amount of young black males either in prison or killed by other black males. result is that black males spend more time chasing other women and less time being fathers) (note 2: possibly bigamy became common in these societies to prevent the excess of available females from encouraging men to sleep around instead of be fathers)
If there are more males than females, the males that have mates get obsessed with protecting them from the surplus males, who form rape gangs to try to get access to the smaller numbers of females. In polygamous societies, every man that has two wives creates a man who can never mate unless he rapes. Bigamy effectively turns a balanced operational sex ratio into a heavily male-biased one. Islam is a codified set of behaviors for protecting females from rape gangs (burka, can’t go outside without male guardian) and exporting the surplus males to neighboring societies so they don’t bother the local females (jihad). That is, essentially, Islam–a code of behaviors designed by a guy with multiple wives in a bigamous society to keep womanless men away from his wives.
The surplus males generated by bigamy are told, “These women are off-limits; they’re spoken for by more powerful men in your society. If you want to get laid, your only option is to go out and conquer something and take their women.” This is how Islam spread so quickly in its first few centuries and this is the driving force behind the huge amount of young men flooding into Europe today. They are not refugees, they are sex tourists. It should be no surprise they are so rapey.
~:~
Monogamy is how a society encourages the weakest males to be productive, since it ensures they’ll be able to find a mate. Another argument you can use is that polygamy brings about social instability. Due to the fact that older, richer, more established men grab all the women, it means that the search for a mate among the younger males is all the more desperate, and violent. Polygamous societies are inherently unstable, prone to great social unrest from the younger men that cannot find a woman. Now, this is fine and dandy if you want to motivate those men to join the army and go conquer someplace else and steal their women, as well as the fact that war attrition will get rid of plenty of those young men, but once your empire has expanded as much as it can the same problems crop up, but this time with no possible outside outlet.
It is no coincidence that enduring civilizations made the switch from polygamy to monogamy over the course of their history, and I highly suspect the troubles Arab civilizations faced around the 14th and 15th century were in large part caused by their reliance on polygamy. You can argue that current Arab societies are what they are because of polygamy. Women are a rare commodity that are fiercely guarded, hence the restrictions placed on their behavior and the need to have a male relative escort them when they are out, lest they be stolen by some other family. The high level of inbreeding could also be part of this, with a family trying to keep all the wealth and power among themselves.
Civilization existed for roughly 2000 years, and all higher form of civilizations with NO exceptions were majority monogamous, even when polygamy was allowed.
Evolution can go fly a kite in the age when we have power to alter our own genome at will. So Gas yourself.
You've said nothing new, though. Newfags shitting up the board notwithstanding, all this is firmly in the "lurk moar" category. Though I suppose there's no harm done in making a concise thread about it every once in a while.
FBI, JIDF or goon? You're on a natsoc board, you fucking retard
I strongly disagree user. In a society where men have a reasonably low death rate monogamy is clearly the way to go. It allows for individual children to be raised better with much more individual attention given from the father. There's a reason men from harem societies all act like niggers.
/thread
Potato Potata.
No monogamy, nigger tier civilization.
Monogamy, space travel and antibiotics.
Are you really echoing evolution?
No shit it is nature- I just didn't want to use the same word twice in such quick succession
I'm not advocating for this form of mating in society, I just had some time in matlab and crystalized a theory.
I know it isn't "new", but I've never seen it approached and explained simply on an mutation argument before.
I didn't read all that but I'll admit that's correct–the harem format, a male keeping many females, is the optimal strategy for both sexes.
The male has many mates and spreads his seed as far as possible.
Each female has their male of choice. She has his resources.
Civilization arises from monogamy, however. Consider some implications of the harem format. Sounds great, one male having all he wants. But who gets to be that male? Only the top tiny percentage of males has the opportunity for that to be the case–and this leaves out in the cold the other 99% of males. Where will their sex and fecundity come from? Without opportunity to reproduce, what incentive do they have to become more valuable? That is, if there's no chance you'll make it, why bother at all?
In monogamous society, civilization was able to rise because almost all men had incentive to become valuable, and therefore produce and build civilization. Every man could have something good, a woman, a partner, a caretaker for his children, etc.
In the harem format, only the strongest, most vicious males will succeed, and their progeny will reflect that. A very nasty world indeed.
Permit me a lens: civilization came from men who were smart but not the most powerful, who figured out systems that gave a lot more males a much better shot. If I'm Gronk, who can smash anyone's face in to get anything I want, what's the point of allowing competing males to live? But if you can convince Gronk that letting you live will bring roads, and buildings, and cellphones, and food supplies, all of which Gronk will enjoy, that works for him. One less man to kill.
Your model ignores that the strength of white civilization is quality offspring. A nigger only needs to learn to chuck a spear while surviving in the cold north means being taught thousands of thing. You also can't just bang up a bunch of women and expect them to survive the winter.
That's why the hallmark of western civilization has been men focusing on their one mate and their offspring to endure that he does not breed more than he can feed, and that his young are trained into men hard enough to carry their own family in a hostile world.
There's so much wrong with your posts that I honestly don't know where to start.
Civilization is behavioral, you fucking retard.
Jesus christ that formatting is aesthetic cancer. I'd rather read reddit spacing.
Hello, Fatter.
Oh I agree wholeheartedly. Again, this is a thought experiment.
Shit, I've been found out!
But seriously, I know it is a far more complex system than the one I described- hence my reduction in complexity from the outset.
Even with my overly simple model, it does map on to IQ fairly nicely, doesn't it? :^)
What buzzwords did I use? I didn't use any on purpose.
Is it possible OP doesn't know there's a difference between mutation rate and selection pressure in driving evolutionary change? Mutations tend to scatter the plot and scramble the outcomes. A high rate of variability effectively reduces fitness, rather than increasing it. The reason i that, if your parent organisms lived long enough to have you, they're probably close to the species optimum already. Multiple rapid changes to that template are just asking for disaster. Selection, on the other hand, almost literally sculpts a gene pool to its environment in just the way a sculptor carves marble, by chipping away the rough edges. Look to selection, not mutation, for the route forward.
That having been said, human females are heavily selected as well. Remember that human females are not passive choosers like female birds, but they must also be chosen. Male humans invest far more in their offspring than other mammal males usually do, arguably almost as much as the females do. Somewhat-arguably more, given the prolonged episodes of pregnancy when a woman needs extra protection and provender.
This economy makes it possible for the males to be choosy as well. And they might be selecting for quite different traits than the females are. So the competing pressures are:
Women seek males who are physically adequate and behaviorally excellent (good hunters and warriors, fathers and social climbers, etc.)
Men seek women who are adequate behaviorally and physically superior (young and healthy, clear skin, symmetrical features, energetic, etc.)
If men are selecting women in the same way women select men – thereby applying as strong a pressure on the "GP" as you think is being applied to the "NGP" – we would expect to see women instinctively putting in effort to physically beautify themselves and maximize their physical attractiveness through makeup and clothes, while men would seek to maximize their social position and behavioral fitness through sports and work.
Too bad we don't see anything like that, huh user?
all of you dumb pol niggers painted yourselves into a corner with your muh social darwinism muh strength muh eugenics ideology. the moment a guy comes along to talk about the best strategy for genetic fitness–nigger harems–you all trip over yourselves to reject the whole thing because you don't like the implications it has for your fagtarded ideology.
Absolutely, that is a factor in what I was calling the "limited harem".
The NGP has to invest time and effort in to offspring, so naturally it would choose the best GPs possible, and not spread itself too thinly- if this were to happen then another NGP would become a more suitable mate.
Self correcting system.
Except for the part where Jews buy all the media and propagandize us out of monogamy. Where does that factor into the system?
Trips speak truth.
Proposed model doesn't account for kikery.
...
The Spartans were cucks with a eugenic justification. They reasoned thus:
I find that amusing.
The only reason I didn't bother to even fucking read the thread was because he suggested that a part of sandnigger culture is key to evolution. This shit is always a thin veil for
White men already used to take multiple women for breeding purposes, you fucking retard. What the fuck are concubines? Everyone used to do that shit, not just sandniggers.
Advocating the "harem" specifically is to ask us to recognize the Arabic aspect behind it.
If OP made a thread about how Whites should revert back to their tribalistic aspects in regards to their own European culture, it would be more positively received.
THE REPULSION TO THIS COMES FROM THE ARABIC CONNOTATION, NOT THE EUGENICS, YOU FUCKING IDIOT
You are not wrong.
Somewhat right, pacification of the untermensch arises from monogamy.
Harems for closers. Monogamy for plebs. You don't want the lower classes to think they can just run around make tons of children that they can't afford. However, the higher classes who can afford the women and the children and the hush money, well they get the harem by being above the proletarian monogamists. Which isn't to say that the proles are actually monogamous, all it takes is a whore running through town or any other number of interesting social situations to end up in an extra-marital affair.
The strength of white civilization is pacification of the untermensch, and the jews are beating the dogshit out of whites in this regard at the moment.
oy vey
Very interesting OP, thanks for putting in the work and walking us through the reasoning.
Ok maybe I should have refrained from the word "Harem".
Good point.
In case it wasn't clear- I'm not advocating for Islam, or commenting about birth rates. just a mental model.
Consider the key traits that attract a modern day woman to a man, and rightly assume that the man that has all of them (or one in abundance) would have the larges harems.
None of these things really require a mutation for the man to be able to bed a woman, so it's right to assume that chaging the conventional relationship men and women have would be pointless - since without heavy regulations on breeding it would bring no benefits.
Money
Power
nothing else of great note that is not already a proxy for one of these things.
Not linear maths:
So clearly you are a physics/maths user. First thing to know is biology is not a hard science. rarely does y = mx +c and while some punnet squares will produce the mathematically blissful 1:2:1 distribution its is actually not that common, and the original results Mendel used were 'massaged' to get this neat relationship.
In nature x is proportional to a function of itself, the definition of chaos.
Nature shows winners:
is in nature if something is successful it is abundant. If polygamy was successful for humans it would be abundant, having out completed other strategies clearly polygamy is not abundant so therefore it is not superior to monogamy in most cases.
Harems Arabia say 500AD to present . The reason they were popular is that female children were not considered as valuable as male children, frequently infanticide was preformed. male children were soldiers and bandits, female were just a resource drain and were better to be stolen/enslaved as adults for breeding and fun. you could also sell your female children, slavery was totally acceptable, of course to buy female children one would need to be very rich so the only buys were kings and princes. The buying of females was for sex slaves and the production of new (half blood) princes, and there would be many to pick from in case official princes were duds the rest could be used as guards and canon fodder. females born of harems could be sold traded to other kings/ princes. The other purpose of absorbing excess females was to keep females scarce and control female sexuality. If one can control female sexuality civilization can emerge or be kept stable. Remember is a warlike region like Arabia many men will die before reaching adulthood and females will be abundant unless artificially reduced. remember that even young boy slinging stones are combat effective and if in the losing side of a battle would be killed like men were.
Economic considerations:
how can a man without contraception afford to feed his children unless having a large resource base. add more wives and see how impossible this becomes. 1 woman could have 15 children in a life time excluding twins/triplets. 2 wives could give you 30 children. imagine 15 of those were sons who did the same as you, 450 grandchildren, if each of them needs 15 acres to live on your grandchildren need 6750 acres of land. So in 50-70 years you and your 2 wives decedents need 6750 acres of land. It not long before this become infeasible without wars or starvation or both.
population and demographic considerations:
then think of his progeny who must find new lands and marry outside their village as they have grown in such large number so quickly. Consider how they will often carry the same genetic weaknesses so that a vast % of their population could be wiped out by one disease or allergy. All of these things make polygamy as a strategy weak in the long term.
genetic weirdness:
A genetic advantage is often attached to a genetic disadvantage, so there is no safe optimum state. Sickle cell anemia give protection from malaria, which is why it is common is Africans. DNA does not operate like a simple unzip> code for protein> zip back up process, with DNA folding back onto itself in certain circumstances for 'easter egg' proteins codes the are 200 base pairs away and have no start codons.
Not a bad thread, but we have seen this before, well reasoned in many places but a few over simplifications. B+. lurk moar.
Nope. Think about how much intelligence is required to learn a valuable skill, get a job, work hard, acquire wealth attract a wife and keep money constantly flowing in for 20 years to raise your kids.
compare this to the intelligence required to look pretty, find wealthy man, get married( never work again),shit out kids.
women have less IQ then men simply because they don't need it. The same reason men have nipples, but much smaller than women's, because they are not needed as much.
Women getting more degrees than men is simply a consequence of women being encouraged into the workforce and given preferential treatment there and especially in education. Though there is is no real value to women/gender studies degree, and its hard to know how many women have these worthless degrees.
College graduation is not a proxy for IQ.
One could argue that in the last 10 years it has abeen a proxy for lower than average IQ as a degree is not a good investment and more an expensive status symbol or accessory. A thing which claims intelligence for someone who has little, no surprise naturally narcissistic women are desperate to get such a validation.
If graduation was proxy for IQ, womens IQ would have needed to have absolutely exploded in the last 2 generations, something that would be almost impossible without obvious positive selection pressure. What was that selection pressure?
Men's IQ still vastly outstrips women's IQ at higher levels, and nothing seem to be reducing this trend. The only thing I can see to do that would be Women supporting men financially for a few dozen generations, something that have never been widespread in any successful culture I am aware of.
Women are not smarter than men, polygamy won't change that. degree=/= high IQ