Evolution DOES apply to human beings

This is so wrong I’m not going to bother attempting a full breakdown, it would be a book. Suffice to say, this is why evolutionary psychology exists, but sure, ask a philosopher on a subject they have zero qualification for. What about the Calhoun experiments, which his site has documented? He must be either joking or too stupid to see the connections.

Clue is in the name, Natural Selection, the 19th century term, applies in a State of Nature, an 18th century term that Darwin was referencing. A state of man, as in The State, will change variables e.g. land resources (housing), cost of living/unemployment/benefits, mate availability (cultural). Each culture reinforces a different reproductive strategy: Europe (white-majority) has future-time orientation (reinforced by cross-cultural studies of time perception), we reach an equilibrium with the amount of resources we have (now economy, used to be sheer territory for agrarian usage). We avoid tragedy of the commons, and genetic (racial) homogeneity allowed us to cooperate with our kin into prosperity (most of our history, Christianity was a useful meme for this). Low time preference.

He seems to think humans should be this constantly replenishing organism like a virus (let’s leave 8 children per woman in Africa, huh?) but we used to have those numbers because few would survive to adulthood. Technology and crucially, MEDICINE, have allowed us to invest more as parents (Trivers) to compete in a high-IQ demanding society. Quality of children is vital in the First World. As long as we don’t mess up the Malthusian trap by say, letting in African ‘boat people’ en masse or destroying the successful host culture until it breaks, the developed world will be stable.

Has he even read On Origin? Descent of Man? Natural Selection? Nope. He’s going by what school taught him, how redpill…..

rdj claps applause mhmm

Another point I need to make;

Female animals DO use drug contraceptives or otherwise control their estrus (hidden in humans) all the time, e.g.

The Ancient Romans had a contraceptive so successful they used it to extinction;

Silphium was an important species in prehistory, as evidenced by the Egyptians and KnossosMinoans developing a specific glyph to represent the silphium plant.[2] It was used widely by most ancient Mediterranean cultures; the Romans considered it “worth its weight in denarii” (silver coins). Legend said that it was a gift from the god Apollo.

This philosopher Roosh is citing doesn’t know jack about the relevant subjects and to anyone with a brain it shows.

Another counter-example or few, explain these;

r/K Selection Theory and amygdala damage in neoliberals. Conspicuous by omission. http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory-2/

Liberal fertility rates. Covered spectacularly well here: https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/expectations-and-reality-a-window-into-the-liberal-conservative-baby-gap/

Neoliberals are by no means the standard bearers of fertility, I believe he thinks this way due to urban living.
As for altruism, someone please force-read him: http://www.amazon.com/Pathological-Altruism-Barbara-Oakley/dp/0199738572
The West is experiencing increasing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue

Those neoliberals and SJWs are already genetic dead-ends. Reproduction is a genetic arms race. They have lost. Anti-natal policies will do that.
When evolutionary pressures come back into play (they always do: war, famine, epidemic, etc. all the old favourites) what will happen? The victor experiences a ‘Baby Boom’.
When those selection pressures occur, on an infinite timescale it becomes a question of WHEN, what do you think happens to the human mind? Do you assume it just stays the same in your infinite wisdom of grosser biology?

david tennant 10 lol laughing cracking upThey're so stupid it's a laughriot

crying laughter lmaothrow head back laughter george jungle

Everyone is nice when resources are plentiful (Hence I reff’d r/K), it’s the ‘fat and happy’ stereotype of the glut (yes, that’s what that is). When resources become scarce, fight or flight become a reality. The nicest sweetest kindest neoliberals with a heart of gold would gut the granny next door if they were starving, the mindset is totally different, primal and beyond conscious control.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/now-entering-starvation-mode-what-happens-your-metabolic-processes-when-you-stop-feeding-280666
http://io9.com/5941883/how-your-body-fights-to-keep-you-alive-when-youre-starving
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-embodied-mind/201212/survival-mode-and-evolutionary-mismatch

Many people seem to believe that we human beings never arose from nature the way every other living thing did, that we are somehow “beyond,” removed from, nature. But this is a very unfortunate – even a tragic – misconception. Like all other living things, our ancestors were sculpted by Darwinian evolution to survive, reproduce, and thrive within a certain kind of environment. And when we live in environments, such as modern cities, that are drastically different from the environments that we’re biologically adapted for, we become subject to various “evolutionary mismatch” effects that can be extremely detrimental to our physical and emotional health.

http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v16/n5/full/nrn3918.html Latest research. Latest in a long line.

Research in animals and humans has revealed some of the structural, functional and molecular changes in the brain that underlie the effects of stress on social behaviour. Findings in this emerging field will have implications both for the clinic and for society.

http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/05/starvation-what-does-it-do-to-the-brain/

Click to access Young-Kelly-The-Psychological-Effects-of-Starvation-in-the-Holocaust.pdf


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-excess/201309/turn-the-eating
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/12/bite_me.html
http://io9.com/is-cannibalism-natural-1615483037

European history, for instance, is filled with instances of shipwrecked crews and passengers who resorted to cannibalism—even if it meant murdering someone. But, those who were rescued, including the ships’ officers, never had charges pressed against them, as long as they assured the courts that a lottery had been held to determine who would die for the sake of the larger group

The classic example being: if you were in a plane crash would you eat the dead if it meant you could live?
Everyone’s answer is yes if they’re honest and self-aware.

When the axe is to the grindstone, your “fairweather friends” will leave. Humans doling out charity means nothing when they aren’t hard up themselves. If they can afford to give, what is the value? It becomes another trinket and status signalling shows us this, a vapid ploy from arrogance. This is a part of the Bible people misinterpret, it recognised this biological reality.

The people who eschew children would generally make bad parents (no instinct for example) and they choose to spend those resources on themselves, the ultimate in short-sightedness as children are the original pension (they look after you when you can’t work, maybe you babysit the grandchildren, a model older than the State and found in other primates). As it is, since the Sexual Revolution, pro-feminist anti-natal generations have encouraged the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_trap and have only themselves to blame when there aren’t enough tax-paying kiddies to pay their Social Security and other pie-in-the-sky social projects. (Boomers: You failed as humans, you failed to have enough kids to carry things on. It’s basic and you failed. Nothing else matters if there’s nobody to hand the baton to before you die.)

Corporal punishment used to root out the liars and the other genetic deformities (mental illness, serial killers, rapists etc). http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/politically-incorrect-paper-of-the-day-death-penalty-eugenics.html

Roosh again;

If evolution was in effect, it would have been impossible for the “veneer” of civilization to develop.

Civilization developed from pockets of successful tribes, we know it’s possible because we’re here, doofus. Humans are social animals, and one theory of intelligence is that it developed to enhance our ability to lie. Deception keeps civilized society afloat (white lies).

 There is no veneer specifically made for humans.

Humans have a thick cerebral cortex. Birds? Not so much.

The stories of man can’t help but include a puppet master that is controlling all our behavior. Before it was god, now it’s genes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcephalin
http://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/Q8NEM0
Please stop talking, this is causing me physical pain to read. I mean;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurogenetics
and yesterday http://www.neuroscientistnews.com/research-news/missing-link-found-between-brain-immune-system-major-disease-implications

Roosh: People who believe in evolution victim-blame the organism when it acts outside the confines of evolution.

It’s almost like there’s a part of the brain recently-evolved which can suppress our baser instincts
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130314144356.htm

The brain’s prefrontal cortex is thought to be the seat of cognitive control, working as a kind of filter that keeps irrelevant thoughts, perceptions and memories from interfering with a task at hand. Now, researchers have shown that inhibiting this filter can boost performance for tasks in which unfiltered, creative thoughts present an advantage.

Any concept based in evolution is unfalsifiable if you demand a fucking time machine before you believe anything. Good methodology in evopsych rules this out.

Click to access ConwaySchaller2002.pdf


http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/tbs/media_articles/2002_11_butterflies.html

“Evolutionary psychology” is an approach and a set of theories, not a single hypothesis, so no single experiment can falsify it, just as no single experiment can falsify the theory of evolution or the connectionist (neural network) approach to cognition. But particular hypotheses can be individually tested, such as the ones on the relation of symmetry to beauty or the relation of logical cognition to social contracts, and tests of these are the day-to-day activity of evolutionary psychology. Journals such as Evolution and Human Behavior are not filled with speculative articles; they contain experiments, survey data, meta-analyses, and so on, hashing out particular hypotheses. And as I mentioned above, over the long run the approach called evolutionary psychology could be found unhelpful if all of its specific hypotheses are individually falsified.

They aren’t. They’re fodder for other subjects like genetics and neurology.

Evolution is an ongoing process. http://www.livescience.com/45685-human-evolution-not-over.html

Roosh has bought into the neolib frame that they are the end and future of the world.

Disappointing from a redpill. He’s trying to post-hoc rationalize his overt fertility clock.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-men-have-biological-clocks/

Yes, you wasted years of your life running after skanks and no decent wife material would touch you with a bargepole. You made that choice and must live with it (player burnout). You sneered at beta males off having kids. That door is probably closed to you now, in triple digits. #RedpillRegret

Basic primary colour perception varies by sex.

http://www.livescience.com/22894-men-and-women-see-things-differently.html

Basic. Red. Yellow. Blue. Rainbow colours. Not terracotta versus rust. [former is red-orange, latter more brown]
Primary colours too. So this would really throw the cat among the pigeons for any upper level function since a man and a woman can look at literally the same object, same section of the nm spectrum and still disagree/misperceive.

Not that it supports the “nothing is objective” philosophy. These things are quantifiable with optics. The difference is labelling and perception between sexes based on what their senses are capable of perceiving. Cat, pigeons.

Click on this to mix colours online and do a random sample of m/f friends: http://www.wolframalpha.com/widgets/view.jsp?id=82d2083bea117b6f3e03d6426ba2d29f Women give more florid descriptions, men tend to be blunt. That might not be male simplicity or stupidity, as is often claimed, but a difference in colour processing in the brain. Women, being gatherers in tribal societies, required higher colour discrimination than men, who often only needed to catch what they were chasing. Lo and behold;

Guys’ eyes are more sensitive to small details and moving objects, while women are more perceptive to color changes, according to a new vision study that suggests men and women actually do see things differently.

Abramov explained in a statement these elements of vision are linked to specific sets of thalamic neurons in the brain’s primary visual cortex. The development of these neurons is controlled by male sex hormones called androgens when the embryo is developing into a fetus. [and according to pro-choice feminists, not really a person]

“We suggest that, since these neurons are guided by the cortex during embryogenesis, that testosterone plays a major role, somehow leading to different connectivity between males and females,” Abramov said. “The evolutionary driving force between these differences is less clear.” [he says tongue firmly in cheek]

Vive la Evolution!

Oldest stone tool ever found… in Turkey

https://www.royalholloway.ac.uk/aboutus/newsandevents/news/newsarticles/scientistsdiscoveroldeststonetooleverfoundinturkey.aspx

…Scientists have discovered the oldest recorded stone tool ever to be found in Turkey, revealing that humans passed through the gateway from Asia to Europe much earlier than previously thought, approximately 1.2 million years ago.

According to research published in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews, the chance find of a humanly-worked quartzite flake, in ancient deposits of the river Gediz, in western Turkey, provides a major new insight into when and how early humans dispersed out of Africa and Asia…

and Asia now?
They’re trying so hard to keep OOA alive.

The evidence has literally nothing to do with Africa but hey, let’s ignore that.

The researchers used high-precision radioisotopic dating and palaeomagnetic measurements from lava flows, which both pre-date and post-date the meander, to establish that early humans were present in the area between approximately 1.24 million and 1.17 million years ago. Previously, the oldest hominin fossils in western Turkey were recovered in 2007 at Koçabas, but the dating of these and other stone tool finds were uncertain.

“The flake was an incredibly exciting find”, Professor Schreve said. “I had been studying the sediments in the meander bend and my eye was drawn to a pinkish stone on the surface. When I turned it over for a better look, the features of a humanly-struck artefact were immediately apparent.

“By working together with geologists and dating specialists, we have been able to put a secure chronology to this find and shed new light on the behaviour of our most distant ancestors.”

The paper ‘The earliest securely-dated hominin artefact in Anatolia?’ is available online.

Evolutionary Psychology IS a testable science

http://spawktalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/is-evolutionary-psychology-testable.html

It’s hardly difficult to apply the scientific method according to evolutionary markers.
To deny evolution has impacted humanity would be grossly anti-science. Neither does evolution magically stop at the neck, like a choker of changes.

…In 1987, Buss surveyed people from 37 different cultures from around the world about their sexual and marriage preferences. He also asked various social scientists if they thought that people around the world would basically have the same preferences. Based on their culture only theories, all the social scientists he asked predicted that Buss wouldn’t find any human universals. In fact, Buss found that many preferences, such as the female preference for men with money and status, and the male preference for young women, were universal or near universal (8). This data clearly contradicted theories suggesting that sexual preferences are the result of norms particular to a few cultures….

For example, contrary to evolution based theories, many feminists have argued that the differences in the ways that little boys and girls play are the result of the different ways that our society treats male and female children. This theory is made somewhat problematic by the fact that boys around the world engage in rougher play than girls. But it is made much more problematic by the fact that this same trend is seen in non human primates as-well (9)….

Lolapalooza.

Evopsych is falsifiable. We have null hypotheses.

Idiocracy will make people uglier, too

Thought-provoking article. http://www.socialmatter.net/2014/08/22/beauty-bubble/

The result of this confluence of factors is simple:  The current amount of beauty is a bubble, it will pop, and the world will get uglier.  There are cynics who would say that with our government subsidized high carbohydrate diets and sluts with short hairdos and tattoos aplenty, the peak of our beauty bubble is already in our rearview mirror.  They may have a point.

Facts: beauty is rare (minority) and proportionately esteemed, beauty is based in fertility cues and lead to objectively better outcomes on all good measures, European fertility is infamously sub-replacement thanks to feminism. We acquired the term “good-looking” from the association between handsomeness and civilized behaviour.

As earlier;

But not so fast.  Blue-eyed blondes with heart shaped asses are not an infinite largesse bestowed upon us by a higher power.  We are all of woman borne, and if you understand heredity you understand that beautiful girls must, on average, have mothers that were also beautiful.  That is to say, to keep this current beauty spigot flowing the world needs beautiful women to have daughters.

Nature is self-correcting. The slappers, as we call them here, likely gained those looks by genetic randomness their improper behaviour doesn’t support, since the most beautiful women tend to be least promiscuous, as they can demand commitment from men and need not lure them in with sex as an easy bait. However, they are smart enough to use this value to lock down a good man while in low notch numbers. Sluts hate them for this, they get the big prize, so the sluts try to argue their experiences of being used up like a sex toy were positive.

I know it’s anecdotal, but I’ve seen most sluts are 4-6, tops. I am being kind with that estimate.

The article is correct, there will be far fewer beautiful people in the future, male and female. Good-looking men are cautious with contraception and are putting off conceiving too, perhaps indefinitely. There are no rewards for the old family model. On an infinite timeline? A recursion.

Thousands of winters of scarce, sparse prey and harsh terrain culled a significant percentage of men.

This would probably be a few recessions without welfare keeping the r-type brats in iPhones. More and more people, competing against fewer and fewer beautiful people (and notice the right-wing tends to be hotter than the left? no coincidence). The effect is threefold: 1. ugly women try to promote ugliness as a new standard. 2. most men go without and stay at home with porn. 3. beautiful people interbreed, creating an aristocracy, as they make more money, keeping child N small because they’re usually k-types. Or as point three is known now “growing income inequality”.

The ugly women went barren and beauty flourished.

Notice these strong, independent women aren’t going to sperm banks en masse? Seems men aren’t so replaceable. They can’t chase the Government if their welfare check stops. Children are a burden to them.

By decoupling sex and reproduction, it is selecting for those who really want kids.  Will beauty survive?  We’ll have to wait and see.

I believe it will, but it will take a long time to recover and lessons will be learnt e.g. feminism is for ugly women to drag down pretty ones, while faking the signs of the pretty and denying the very existence of pretty.

And what of designer babies? No one, and I mean, NO ONE, will choose ugly ones. We’ll soon find there’s a beauty standard to white, blue-eyed and physically fit. The Viking marauders chose to rape the best and stab the rest, what we see in modernity is the fruit of their eugenic process, and extremes of cold in Northern Europe are a great survival test for good genes.