If a woman and her children don't need a man to survive, she can choose a man who is handsome and charming, but likely to leave after copulation. In other words, she can choose a "chad" and, if she can do so without diminishing the survival chances of herself and her children, she is more likely to do so. The handsome, charming chads then have more offspring and pass their alleles for chad-like behavior on to their sons.
On the other hand, if she is not capable of providing for herself and her children, she will have to be more practical and chose a man who is likely to stick around after sex and take care of her and her children, a "dad." Clark Gable for thrills, Joe Sixpack for bills. Of course, it would be nice if Joe Sixpack were also young, healthy, romantic, and had good genes, but those qualities mean nothing if he does not provide for her and her children. Today, a woman can choose a man who can not, or will not, help her survive and the welfare state will force that man and other people (taxpayers) to provide for her and her children, but before the welfare state a woman who unwisely chose such a man would have a life of poverty and an early death.
It has been suggested that women select men for intelligence and that may have played a significant role in man's evolution towards higher intelligence. Intelligence correlates well with wealth, so intelligence is a way to identify men who have, or are likely to acquire, the resources needed to care for a woman and her children. High status men are also likely to have access to more resources, and so high status is a strong magnet for the ladies. But since women today have less need for the resources of men, many women define "high status" less as having money and power and more as being "cool," ie, having currently-fashionable clothes, language, and behavior.
Any man besieged by women is likely to find the temptation to be a chad irresistible since the more women he impregnates, the more reproductively successful he is likely to be. Women are enthralled by chads because they seem to be genetically superior, as evidenced by the quality of the music they can create, their athleticism, their looks, confidence, etc. And, if other women want chads, the sons they have with a chad may also be more reproductively successful. Wealth, in addition to providing assurance of support, can be used to create an effective "bluff," so a man can present himself as being of better genetic quality than he is. Ditto for a woman and her makeup, clothing, and grooming
The counterpoint:
We introduce checks and balances. Condoms and other forms of prophylactics so that people reproduce later. College and years of hard work in order to succeed in modern society, without which people must resort to living off of a a low-quality diet and hazardous jobs with high exposure to things like smoke and smog and high likelihood of chronic pain. Most importantly we encourage people not to reproduce, that it is a burden, and so only people who feel a moral obligation to reproduce, in order to spread their higher quality genes, are the ones to do so.
>>24766975
>Intelligence correlates well with wealth
Wrong.
A "group animal" is a species whose members live in groups, usually cooperating to obtain food. Wolves are the archetypical group animal, but probably from the first primates and for millions of years thereafter the animals in man's lineage have been group animals at least as much as those in the wolf lineage. Group behavior is still deeply ingrained in our genes and we see it today in how readily we form groups and how important it is for us to be accepted by others in our groups. Allegiance to a group arose because individuals who acted in concert with their associates for their mutual benefit, especially in conflicts with others, were more reproductively successful than those who did not.
For a group animal, and especially for males, high status within the group is the trait most worth having because it is the high-status individuals who mate the most. The importance of status to humans is obvious from the amount of money we spend on clothes, cars, homes, parties, and generally "keeping up with the neighbors." And, conversely, low status, and expulsion from the group is most feared.
>>24767171
pic related
Groups develop rituals, beliefs, customs, language, and apparel to induce individuals to identify with their group and to discourage desertion. In group animals, even though the loss of members weakens a group, one or both of the sexes often leaves the group at sexual maturity and joins a different group. This may be to reduce inbreeding, to spread the group's alleles, or to acquire new alleles that may have arisen in other groups. In most primates that live in groups, it is the adolescent males that leave. Since males compete for females, males leaving reduces intra-group strife, though it means that many young males will never find mates. The absence of a male does not reduce the reproductive success of the group much because a single remaining male can impregnate many females. In gorilla, chimpanzee, and human groups, however, it is the females who leave the group, sometimes by being captured by males from other groups. About 70% of human societies are "patrilocal" (male stays, as opposed to "matrilocal," female stays). (The fact that humans are patrilocal may help explain the higher miscegenation rate of white females.) The most obvious reason for this difference is that gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans engage in more intense inter-group competition i.e., war, and males are required to defend the group's territory. Groups without adult males would simply have their females and territory taken by males in other groups. Thus, the success of the group is so important to the survival of humans that the advantages of retaining females in the group are sacrificed to achieve it. (A pecking order ("dominance hierarchy" or hypergamy) reduces male-male competition for females within a patrilocal group.
Individuals within a group are permitted to remain in the group provided they can be expected to make a net contribution to the reproductive success of those individuals within the group that produce the next generation. The likelihood of a male successfully reproducing after he is forced out of the group is low, so low status males do their best not to anger the leader. By expelling a member, the remaining members alter the gene pool of the group and, when groups compete against other groups of the same species, those other groups become part of the environment that selects whether a group is successful.
If an individual's alleles cause him to act only for his own reproductive success, even when it is damaging to the reproductive success of his group, and those alleles spread throughout his group, eventually both his group and his own lineage will go extinct. The result is that each individual in a group will carry some "altruism alleles" ("White knight") that code for behavior that increases the group's fitness, even though that behavior reduces his individual fitness, such as alleles for deferring to the leader for breeding and for caring for the leader's offspring.
Both man and other group animals are normally innately capable of suffering social control emotions, such as guilt, shame, embarrassment, depression, and remorse, in response to communications from others of approval or disapproval of their behavior. These social control emotions are detrimental to the individual, but essential to the successful functioning of the group. Individuals quickly pick up the meaning of facial expressions and other signs of disapproval, and usually end up following the rules to avoid having to endure the unpleasant emotion. Guilt is self-punishment for not following the group's rules and shame induces submission to those rules.
>>24767212
>$30,000 a year cap
The intra-group rules need not be the same for different groups, and behavior that produces a devastating social control emotion in an individual in one group may create no emotion or even the opposite emotion in an individual in a different group. For example, in "respectable" society, getting drunk is disgraceful, but sailors may take pride in it. The group's culture (i.e., information that is not inherited) programs and activates these emotions, inducing an individual to alter his behavior so that he benefits others in his group, even though that may reduce his personal fitness. Nevertheless, he accepts, and often vehemently defends, the culture of his group because an attack on his culture threatens his acceptance as a member of the group. If particular cultural rules enable a population to better compete with others populations, then individuals in that population who do not feel guilt, shame, or remorse when they break those rules (i.e., sociopaths) will be eliminated from that population, and the only individuals who remain in that population will be those that inherit the propensity to feel the emotions that induce them to follow the rules. We are the product of our place and time, "imprinted" with the beliefs of those around us. We fear contradictory views because they threaten our acceptance within our group. To avoid expulsion, we sacrifice our objectivity and fervently believe and rationalize obvious falsehoods
>>24767293
it's per capita, average national IQ doesn't exceed 1/2 a standard deviation anywhere
>>24766942
tldr
we're fucked
thanks senpai, any other life-changing eye-openers we should be aware of? :')
Stop posting your manifesto, ffs.
Just bee urself and get laid bro.
>goes to r9k
>scroll through funny 1liners and depressing shit
>sees huge post
>fucks off
>>24767329
>The intra-group rules need not be the same for different groups, and behavior that produces a devastating social control emotion in an individual in one group may create no emotion or even the opposite emotion in an individual in a different group. For example, in "respectable" society, getting drunk is disgraceful, but sailors may take pride in it. The group's culture (i.e., information that is not inherited) programs and activates these emotions, inducing an individual to alter his behavior so that he benefits others in his group, even though that may reduce his personal fitness.
/r9k/ in a nutshell
>>24767404
pretty sure he's plagiarizing from wikipedia
>>24767505
at least with the later posts
oh well, i almost had fun i think
>If a woman and her children don't need a man to survive, she can choose a man who is handsome and charming, but likely to leave after copulation. In other words, she can choose a "chad" and, if she can do so without diminishing the survival chances of herself and her children, she is more likely to do so. The handsome, charming chads then have more offspring and pass their alleles for chad-like behavior on to their sons.
>implying women want to start families at all
