No, Peterson, no

I tried watching some basic videos I’d never normally click on as a test.
Topics I knew from reading and speaking to experts.
This was the average level of offender. Little scientism neat stories there.

Raises no eyebrows with the Pitbull IQ host who talks too much.

LISTEN AND BELIEVE.

ANYTHING I LIKE IS EVOLUTION.

What is free will, the law or the naturalistic fallacy?

This is him without prep, he only sounds smart when he’s prepared for the conversations.

Jordan Peterson either thinks he’s smarter than he is (read more) or he’s trolling internet intellectuals for shekels, knowing they won’t look it up because who cares about the truth? I bet 2.

He is not an evobio guy, you’d be better off asking Richard Dawkins!
Someone, on Twitter! Please!

The men wouldn’t have been allowed close enough to GET rejected.
Society invented courting and bachelorhood to keep order, once all males were allowed to survive for labour.

Hypergamy doesn’t even mean what these people think, it’s a marriage construct. Nothing to do with sex, especially sterile sex. Biology of fertility and children (evolution) doesn’t apply to the infertile or sterile. STDs don’t apply to monks for the same reason. Where do they get it???

Marriage construct because marriage is how you access resources? Duh?

We have twice as many female ancestors because 1. they did less stupid things, 2. they were more connected to tribe, 3. no intersexual competition that ends in death, 4. no survival based rite of passage (throwing them out when of age) and 5. no need to display to the opposite sex. Most men would have died beforehand or been killed in the attempt to access them long before social rejection was possible. Tribes were NOT PC. There was NO benefit of the doubt, especially for a stranger trying to access the nubile, do not be dense. Men were known to be rapists and that is why rape developed as a strategy, the losers who wouldn’t be permitted mating opportunities any other way. The contempt for everyone in that. Our disgust is a wholesale rejection of our being.

This age is incredibly eugenic because the rapist types are usually sterile/frigid/impotent, pick a term, the kids don’t breed/are aborted or the woman is on the Pill. This is the most eugenic time period in living memory, and in all of human history. It’s a cleansing. Trust Malthus to take out the trash that appears successful in false conditions (socialism). Liberals aren’t even breeding, smart ones!

He’ll never ever talk about that. He would drag his raw balls over broken glass first.

Women would get a say, but more the parents. It wasn’t just the father. Brothers might take the father’s place, say, for a fight, but the mother held sway over the brothers. Experience and blood connection counted.

Mother Nature is a eugenicist. It’s about quality and survival.

Human genocide and rape after war aren’t accounted for either, despite occurring in chimps so he does know, I can assure you. Plenty of men are poor quality, stop stroking their cock Peterson. We aren’t “meant to” evolve for anything, ask JF, a biologist. It’s such a romantic view? What a strawman. Courtly love is recent you dumb fuck? Like I could disprove that with wikipedia, it’s mostly a French thing too, what, did nobody else evolve? Was the memo to the whole species written in Frog?

The sneaky fucker thing is rape because they have to present themselves dishonestly, knowing their poor quality. They want to force acceptance. You’ll always have the stupid ones as exception thinking it’s about body language or some shit like “alpha dominance” *cough* but even they know to hide, it’s instinct and hardly a social thing, they would sneak into the tribe once the real men were away hunting and the females were vulnerable. They rarely interacted with the men. They’d also be deadbeats after any rape, classic r-type. A male just wanting sex and no investment is not viable, in society, to society, to women or in biology.

This is painful to watch.

Mammals are different. Harlow’s monkeys?

Taking a real thing, interesting and twisting it into shit. It’s like modern art with science. I hope you’re not paying this man.

Of course heroes exist but they hardly bred more than average, Genghis Khan was a rapist. This is known. The shitty males weren’t romancing themselves with stories, what are you on, Jordan? What are you smoking?

We tell stories about bad people far more than good ones. Fairy tales? Old ones?

Beta male has three meanings

  1. shit internet one, means nothing. Used here.
  2. Evobio, deference but not sexual, social with sometimes sexual outcomes, it’s seen in the military and chosen, earned. Royalty’s ancestors were at some point battle victors.
  3. Sexual attractiveness, subpar but chosen nonetheless. This is sometimes used to refer to parents, a little inaccurately. Evolutionally, breeders win. All parents are in the running for alpha but it’s based on quality. Beta bux is not true, as I’ve linked to studies before. Parental Investment shows that doting fathers have better odds than the sneaky fuckers who call themselves alpha but are truly deadbeats. You could relate it to masculinity but it isn’t bravado or aggression, those are low class status signals to get attention. Masculinity has always been the Patriarch, the father figure who stays and is a good man. Greece fell because Zeus fucked around, pagans are scrubbers.

Male feminists (SJWs) have many issues, I cannot list them all here.

They hate themselves, it needn’t be about the women, that’s why they often wanna become women. Trying to gain trust based on lies is the act of a sexual predator, which most douchebags viewing this would call alpha “game” (the game is lying) because they believe all the tropes about cavemen in cartoons, when rapists were brained with a rock (yes, I agree, let’s do that again). You are not smarter than them larping Johnny Bravo. Did anyone respect him?

Video: Kleptogamy aka the Sneaky Fucker Strategy

I would call this the Bruce Jenner strategy. Cuttlefish spring to mind, donning female pattern colours.
Trannies and gay (really bisexual) men get to spend a lot of solo time with sexually available women. Like men in theatre, cheer-leading or ballet.

This whole series, called Wild Sex, covers evolutionary biology and while moderately tame by redpill standards, it’s hard to deny most of it. I highly recommend it.

Also relevant:

This subtly answers a common manosphere question;

Q: Why are modern women androgynous?
A: Feminist-dominant society punishes them otherwise, wanting to keep the standard required from men low or neutralize the superior competition with similarity (pressure from women) AND in a free sexual marketplace, they get less unwanted attention from aggressive, rude males wanting only one thing (pressure from men). 

Maybe that’s why the question goes unanswered, the manosphere doesn’t want to believe it’s half the problem.

Did I mention I recommend it?

Whiny “friendzoned” orbiters actually conniving sneaky bastards

If you have to call yourself nice, you’re not nice.
Everybody is basically nice, it’s nothing special.
It’s like having a sense of humour, most people do.

http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/7/27/whos-hot-whos-not-time-will-tell.html

They tried to trick (let’s say for argument) the hot woman into finding them desirable, and failed.

In a new study4 the research team asked a sample of 167 couples how long they had known each other (as acquaintances) before they started dating. What they found was that for couples who knew each other for very little time (less than 1 month) there was a very strong correlation between each other’s attractiveness level (ranging between .53 and .72). But for couples who knew each other 9 months or more before dating, the correlation between partners’ attractiveness was basically zero.

Friend Goggles.
Like to like-like.

A similar effect was found when the researchers asked couples if they were “friends” before dating (I put the word friends in quotation marks because it’s always possible that one partner could be secretly crushing on their friend). For those couples who were friends before dating, there was a much lower correlation between their attractiveness levels. So the take home point is that people are less likely to match their partners’ attractiveness level if they knew each other for a long time before they started dating….

This is hardly the rule, however.
What usually happens is rejection, but these studies only study on the couples where the offer was met with acceptance.

Another implication might be that the best strategy to date someone “out of your league” is to become friends with them first and be patient.

Yes, leagues totally exist, contrary to what some whiny men have complained on here. Science!

One of my childhood friends calls this “playing the long game.” However, we do not have any data yet about whether this is an effective strategy.

Trans.: It only works on stupid people who don’t know or appreciate their own SMV.
That’s why the orbiters whine. And the mark gets insulted. The whole friendship was a lie, a sneaky fuckers-style sexual strategy (kleptogamy) to blind the woman to her own perceptions of sexual attractiveness.

It might work but only a small percentage of the time. Hopefully future research will help us discover whether “playing the long game” is generally successful, or if some people are more successful at it than others.

In the successful cases, the bridge between SMV must be small, in my observation. Like, 2 points MAX.

From the woman’s perspective, being the mark of such a loser is incredibly insulting (from SF link);

When low-status males have no chance of accessing females via traditional routes such as fighting or signalling their prowess, they may attempt more deceptive means of getting a mate.

Assortative mating applies to long-term pair bonding i.e. marriage. So all the guys in the manosphere below a 7 (standard bearer for attractive) expecting to marry a supermodel are never going to marry.

Effete beta males and the Sneaky Fucker Strategy

http://mouthed.blogspot.co.uk/2007/03/sneaky-fucker-strategy.html

You’ll be happy to know you’re not alone in your confusion; in fact this very phenomenon has been documented in other animal populations and even been given a quite unscientific name, Sneaky F—er Strategy … ..

dis gonna be good anticipation pull up a chair listen watch

I must point to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bateman%27s_principle

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29509301/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/dude-fish-looks-lady-why/#.VW76-LlFDZ4

Around the world, increasing numbers of male fish are developing female traits — growing new sexual organs and sometimes even producing eggs. The phenomenon that has been blamed mostly on chemicals that get into the water and mimic the female hormone estrogen.

But a new study puts some of the blame on an entirely different class of chemicals — ones that block the action of male hormones called androgens.

http://jasoncollins.org/2014/01/08/the-origin-of-the-phrase-sneaky-fcker/
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/30/amok-time-for-crayfish/

What’s the advantage to the ladies here? It’s the incitement. The crayfish live in high population densities, and stirring up a little trouble and getting the males to fight provides an opportunity to select a winner. It may also produce a local population of desirable contenders: a whiff of urine may encourage wimpy males to run away and avoid potential trouble, while the more aggressive males may home in on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apistogramma_cacatuoides#Breeding

One of the more interesting traits of Apistogramma cacatuoides is that of “sneaker” males. Due to the aggressive, territorial nature of the males, a submissive male will not develop the full “cockatoo” finnage nor the full male coloration. He will “pretend” to be a female and take any opportunities presented to mate with willing females. If the dominant male then dies, this submissive male will then develop the full finnage.

http://www.livescience.com/21374-cuttlefish-gender-bending-disguise.html

When a male cuttlefish is wooing a lady, he often “cheats” by painting typical female patterns on one side of his body, while the other side ? the one facing the female ?  shows off typical male patterns. This gender-bending disguise fools rival males into thinking they’re seeing just a couple of ladies hanging out. That means more of an opportunity for the cheater cuttlefish to mate.

You’re intelligent people, draw your own conclusions.