Perhaps I should offer a rejoinder to my previous essay.
Real evolution is something that we should be trying to achieve. It is truly something that we should focus our energies on.
and yeah, I am aware that a lot of people think that no violence=lots of random se- with random strangers. happenstance meetings, chance occurrences. liberals are quite predictable. they seem to think that__
Evo psychologists have it all wrong. They have both factors completely wrong- what motivates females is wrong. And what motivates males is wrong. [[summarize reiterate why they think,, ''the female is hardwired to be faithful to one male but males are hardwired to sleep around."" **also explain why this last part is not true.]]]]]
Both sides have strong incentives to demand fidelity from the other.
This is a brilliant hypothesis and I wish I thought of it myself. But alas, I cannot take credit for it. I found this idea on the internet. Both males and females have an evolutionary drive to want the other to stick around.
Female wants the male to stick around and be monogamous to her. So that she can have all his resources. Food and shelter. Male wants female to be monogamous to her so that he is assured that she is bearing his and only his offspring and not that of another male's.
Stunningly, it actually fits perfectly in perfect harmony and balance, the physical and sexual evolutionary drives for greatest reproductive success. Perfectly integrates this with higher-animals' advanced psychosocial development.
Hehe, it is kind of funny in that both parties monitor and police the other's reproductive behavior. This is a far cry from the evo psychll's insistence that each sex is hardwired to follow its own behavioral governance.
Physical health -and- providing n protecting the family are no longer the same thing.
aha, yes-- write that in great detail,, exactly why and how physical looks n health n strength are no longer indicators of a successful happy life for a male. Nor, certainly, are they indicators of a happy, successful life for a female.
---here, talk about human civilization and how as the human race progressed, had to take a further and further [[recline,, backseat]]] to genuinely evolved psychosocial characteristics. new personality traits began to emerge as humans lived through the eons. new personality traits
[[[[[[ include a picture each of two people for comparison. list their lifestyles and accomplishments. ]]]]
Here are two people featured for comparison. I have purposely chosen two people who are both African-American, because that always manages to cut through the BS and shoot right to the core of whatever the hell everyone is arguing about.
*This gentleman is married, has a full-time job as an auto repair shop manager, and he and his wife have two young children, which they both actively participate in raising. His wife is a nurse. They were married since at least nine months before their first child was born.
*This other gentleman demonstrates all of the traits that evolutionary psychologists insist are characteristic of successful "evolution." Hopping from one female to the next, impregnating many random females, not bothering to stick around to raise those offspring. All the women he has fathered children with-- are as staunchly anti-marriage, anti-commitment as he is. They say they "Don't want to be tied down to a man." And surely, why should they be? They get everything they need from the state. Housing, medicaid health insurance, food stamps. The government gives them whatever they need, by taxing those forms of sustenance away from other unrelated citizens. They do not need to work for nor earn any of it. Most of these females have other children, which are fathered by men other than this particular one, producing a strange web of descendants and blood relatives spread amongst the neighborhood.
Just some FYI. This second gentleman began reproducing before the age of seventeen. The female consorts began reproducing before the age of seventeen. And the vast majority of their offspring in turn began reproducing before the age of seventeen. None of these reproducers are married to their gene-exchangers, nor were they ever married. Of these descendants and indeed of the consorts, the majority of them did not finish high school. They are barely functionally literate at a sixth-grade reading level. (That is the level of reading difficulty at which most newspapers publish articles.)
According to the proponents and promoters of "social evolution," the second man is more fit evolution-wise that the first man.
However, sticking to one spouse with one stable family is not, according to you, evolution. Yes, we can totally see that things worked out quite well for the second example. After all, they have practiced your brand of evolution. They have chosen quantity over quality. Therefore I concede your point of course.
Real evolution is something that we should be trying to achieve. It is truly something that we should focus our energies on.
and yeah, I am aware that a lot of people think that no violence=lots of random se- with random strangers. happenstance meetings, chance occurrences. liberals are quite predictable. they seem to think that__
Evo psychologists have it all wrong. They have both factors completely wrong- what motivates females is wrong. And what motivates males is wrong. [[summarize reiterate why they think,, ''the female is hardwired to be faithful to one male but males are hardwired to sleep around."" **also explain why this last part is not true.]]]]]
Both sides have strong incentives to demand fidelity from the other.
This is a brilliant hypothesis and I wish I thought of it myself. But alas, I cannot take credit for it. I found this idea on the internet. Both males and females have an evolutionary drive to want the other to stick around.
Female wants the male to stick around and be monogamous to her. So that she can have all his resources. Food and shelter. Male wants female to be monogamous to her so that he is assured that she is bearing his and only his offspring and not that of another male's.
Stunningly, it actually fits perfectly in perfect harmony and balance, the physical and sexual evolutionary drives for greatest reproductive success. Perfectly integrates this with higher-animals' advanced psychosocial development.
Hehe, it is kind of funny in that both parties monitor and police the other's reproductive behavior. This is a far cry from the evo psychll's insistence that each sex is hardwired to follow its own behavioral governance.
Physical health -and- providing n protecting the family are no longer the same thing.
aha, yes-- write that in great detail,, exactly why and how physical looks n health n strength are no longer indicators of a successful happy life for a male. Nor, certainly, are they indicators of a happy, successful life for a female.
---here, talk about human civilization and how as the human race progressed, had to take a further and further [[recline,, backseat]]] to genuinely evolved psychosocial characteristics. new personality traits began to emerge as humans lived through the eons. new personality traits
[[[[[[ include a picture each of two people for comparison. list their lifestyles and accomplishments. ]]]]
Here are two people featured for comparison. I have purposely chosen two people who are both African-American, because that always manages to cut through the BS and shoot right to the core of whatever the hell everyone is arguing about.
*This gentleman is married, has a full-time job as an auto repair shop manager, and he and his wife have two young children, which they both actively participate in raising. His wife is a nurse. They were married since at least nine months before their first child was born.
*This other gentleman demonstrates all of the traits that evolutionary psychologists insist are characteristic of successful "evolution." Hopping from one female to the next, impregnating many random females, not bothering to stick around to raise those offspring. All the women he has fathered children with-- are as staunchly anti-marriage, anti-commitment as he is. They say they "Don't want to be tied down to a man." And surely, why should they be? They get everything they need from the state. Housing, medicaid health insurance, food stamps. The government gives them whatever they need, by taxing those forms of sustenance away from other unrelated citizens. They do not need to work for nor earn any of it. Most of these females have other children, which are fathered by men other than this particular one, producing a strange web of descendants and blood relatives spread amongst the neighborhood.
Just some FYI. This second gentleman began reproducing before the age of seventeen. The female consorts began reproducing before the age of seventeen. And the vast majority of their offspring in turn began reproducing before the age of seventeen. None of these reproducers are married to their gene-exchangers, nor were they ever married. Of these descendants and indeed of the consorts, the majority of them did not finish high school. They are barely functionally literate at a sixth-grade reading level. (That is the level of reading difficulty at which most newspapers publish articles.)
According to the proponents and promoters of "social evolution," the second man is more fit evolution-wise that the first man.
However, sticking to one spouse with one stable family is not, according to you, evolution. Yes, we can totally see that things worked out quite well for the second example. After all, they have practiced your brand of evolution. They have chosen quantity over quality. Therefore I concede your point of course.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment