The following was recently posted by Richard:
I had a thought today regarding something that has been on my mind for quite a while. If the women who hold out for the perfect guy the longest end up not having kids, won’t that breed their personality types out of the gene pool? In the past these women would have made some dude’s life hell with their constant nagging, so maybe it IS best if they stay single forever. Thoughts?
My knee-jerk response is that this is possible. However, what we notice in real life is a desperate course correction at the tail end of the reproductive years of those women where they desperately try to get pregnant. However, it is undeniable that those women have fewer children, so these traits should become less frequent over time.
Contribute your thoughts below. Richard posted an interesting question, in particular for those who dabble in evolutionary psychology.
This blog depends on your contributions. So, share your view and comment on this article (comment policy). Then, to ensure the survival of this blog, donate. If you haven’t bought Aaron’s books yet, then buy them, all of them. Lastly, if you want tailored and honest advice, book some one-on-one consultation sessions.
This merits some further thought, but my first answer would be no, probably not. Because hypergamy and the quest for a better partner are at the same time required to optimize our reproduction chances.
The current push for women to forego reproduction in order to study and develop professionally beyond their fertility window is cultural in origin, and barely a couple generations old.
True but there are still some women who get married and have families young. It’s the women least interested in family who are the most susceptible to the culture of feminism.
This is a tough one unless someone really gets how evolution works at a deep level.
Personally I don’t. With the little that I’ve researched I’ve seen scientists talk about how evolution can work extremely quickly… For example an animal is completely different within just 2-3 generations… whereas in other contexts where they explain evolution they make it sound like it takes 1000s of generations to make for a difference.
“Completetly changed” in a couple generations sounds like a stretch. I believe that may be so the closer you get to the unicellular level, with less complex living beings. But with more advanced species, which are much more specialized, I have trouble visualizing it… to put an ad absurdum example, sharks would hardly be able to evolve wings and fly in many generations, if at all.
One of the go-to examples for fast evolution in mammals is the domesticaded foxes project in Russia, where scientists selected foxes for tameness and got remarkable differences in a span of barely 30 generations or so. But these evolved in a controlled environment with artificially enforced selection pressure, human society is infinitely more fluid and complex. Some societies put pressures on women that are incompatible with reproduction, but others dont, and none of them are isolated bubbles.
My point above was that hypergamy works well both for reproducing and non-reproducing females, just that the non reproducing ones will go on to be unhappy cat ladies after their reproductive window shuts down. So I dont see a strong selection pressure for hypergamy to go away.
Oh fuck off, completely changed I didn’t mean they go from being an elephant to a bird for fucks sake.
Sometimes I hesitate commenting on this blog because there’s a guy who gets hung up on the semantics of one word I used. I come here to relieve stress between work and quickly blurt out a comment, but sometimes the nitpicking is if I had written a PhD dissertation.
uhm…I stand with Alek on this one.
You remember that Soviet experiment that turned foxes into domesticated cat/dog-like animals in like just a couple of generations?
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2019/foxy-behavior-russian-fox-farm-uncovered-basis-canine-domestication/
Are you talking about Cultural Marxism? (I had to.)
I was responding in terms of the actual discussion here… Can women evolve to be less hypergamous and how long would it take.
“Completely change” meaning in terms of how they choose mates or which food they prefer to eat. Not completely change as in become a completely different species.
And for fucks sake I started the conversation with I don’t have a clue on this subject. So wasn’t claiming it would take 3 generations. Just saying that I am so uninformed that I have no idea is it 3 or 10,000 generations. But I’ve seen some scientists discussing radical changes in couple of generations. Stuff like some animal introduced to an island and completely changes its hunting/mating approach or some shit. It was in the context of “I have no clue” and “women’s hypergamy”. Not humans as a whole being with all its 1500 definining features.
@Neutral
You link wont open, but that is exactly the experiment i was referencing in my post.
From the wikipedia entry:
“The least domesticated foxes, those that flee from experimenters or bite when stroked or handled, are assigned to Class III. Foxes in Class II let themselves be petted and handled but show no emotionally friendly response to experimenters. Foxes in Class I are friendly toward experimenters, wagging their tails and whining. In the sixth generation bred for tameness we had to add an even higher-scoring category. Members of Class IE, the “domesticated elite”, are eager to establish human contact, whimpering to attract attention and sniffing and licking experimenters like dogs. They start displaying this kind of behavior before they are one month old. By the tenth generation, 18 percent of fox pups were elite; by the 20th, the figure had reached 35 percent. Today elite foxes make up 70 to 80 percent of our experimentally selected population.[2]”
This BBC story has more detail, for those inclined to lear further
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160912-a-soviet-scientist-created-the-only-tame-foxes-in-the-world
@Aaron
Well played, Sir, well played 🙂
Conversely, all the MGTOW guys would hypothetically be gone after a few cycles, unless they start jizzing in beakers soon into the future.
I think we have reached a point in history that is more about memetic evolution than genetics.
I know lot of ugly people who reproduce like rabits (it’s actually not hard at all to nock up a bitch if you have 0 standards), and lot of intelligent/hot people who have no children at all.
The current system is not sustainable anyways, feminism needs a host (the welfare state) but when it has destroyed its host (= men have no incentive anymore to be productive = the end of the welfare state)
it will collapse.
but once the system collapses, the next step will maybe be a next dark age, and genetics will rule again.
interesting times
As a society, we are on a massive downward trend due to dysgenics being rampant. The next dark age is not a future scenario. We have already entered it. At this point, only a good purge can help us, so that may be the silver lining of Covid-19. First, the boomers die off, then the welfare state is identified as a yoke around society, so it gets abolished (if you struggle to fix real problems, you can’t afford to spend billions on bullshit), and as a consequence, a lot of those illiterate doctors and engineers may go back to the third world. It could also be that the Covid-19 disaster gives a huge push to nationalist parties who then implement a thorough program of forced repatriation. This is the best-case scenario. I don’t think it will happen. Instead, we will likely see further societal collapse because due to the general drop in intelligence, our modern infrastructure will turn out to be unmaintainable.
Dont count on the welfre state being abolished…. a further drive down socialism is equally likely. Venezuela is the latest cautionary tale.
Good point! You need to be a true believer to prefer taking society down completely over abolishing the welfare state.
Yes society is definitely going downhill. On the other hand, I think guys may be better off in the long run as you’re not stuck with an aging woman. This is good for individual men but not for society, as the collapse in birth rates is definitely bringing down the West.
Hypergamy in the modern way is partly a social construct. Too much choice inhibits action in people. That goes even for banal things like grocery shopping. And don’t forget just because a women is ‘waiting’ for the perfect guy, it doesn’t mean that she doesn’t have sex with chaaaaad. 100 years ago chaaaad would have knocked her up (which is now prevented by birth control). So it’s not the hypergamy that stops her from breeding, its the birth control. Now a behavioural tendency to use birth control (our intelligence, because you are aware of what makes you pregnant) could indeed be directly eliminated by evolution. But than it’s a cultural thing again. I thing you cannot use the evolutionary theory with people like you use it with animals.
Overall: not hypergamy but the intelligence that created a society with too much choice and birth control will be eliminated by evolution. And that’s actually happening! The higher your IQ the less children you have and because IQ is 2/3 inherited it gets breed out.