Ironically, to enforce the Bible, in places.
Specifically the places where it wasn’t working. 
“Divorce was granted
only after an official inquiry by a judge, who had to determine
whether “appropriate grounds”-very narrowly defined in terms of
marital offenses-existed.6 When a divorce was granted, the state asserted
broad authority to structure the economic relationship of the
spouses and to maintain regulatory jurisdiction over the children
and their relationship to the parents.7 Doctrines such as collusion,8
connivance,9 and condonation’0 were meant to curtail the degree to
which parties themselves could bring about a divorce through agreement;
the procedural requirements reflected the view that everyone
was “a suspicious character.”
Among other things, no-fault divorce is also responsible for a lower spousal suicide rate, probably homicide (harder to measure) and certainly lower rates of domestic abuse. Overturning it requires an open admission these things do happen, one or both parties can be absolutely awful at their job and they still maintain the right to decide their intimate business over whatever State they happen to be stuck in. Appealing to tradition doesn’t really work when some of those values were very poorly aligned with the law at the time, to keep up Pollyanna appearances. To go back to all the old laws, men would have to prove good character (what is that? nobody would get married) and women would be able to press charges for seduction (rape by fraud is already historically present in the law books, i.e. nobody would get married). A lot of the modern “dating” process would also be swiftly made illegal.
Funny they never mention that.
And if men were the sex wriggling to get away, it begs two questions. Firstly, why the fuck did they propose? Second, wouldn’t that constitute abandonment on his part? A grave matter, severely punished, we all know of deadbeats who’d be whipped into shape by a return of fault laws. No-fault divorce treats men equally to women (justice is blind ‘n all), because they’re given the benefit of the doubt where they could be abandoned too.
A list of unisex faults and standards of proof are required, rooted in the post-Reformation Bible, instead of a reversion to a system that blatantly did not work. Two ruined lives plus children is not a success. For example, allowing divorce but banning re-marriage would silence many vocal oppositions. If there’s a limit on abortion and insurance claims, there should logically be one on an oath including “til death do you part”. These faults should be acknowledged in the marriage contract itself, along with ways to avoid them, and an expanded edition to make sure both parties really intend to follow through on their oath (which should be set in stone for legal reasons).
“In the Old Testament, God allowed divorce if a man’s heart became so hardened against his wife that she was actually better off without him“
…That isn’t rare. Calculate the odds of marrying anyone with mental problems nowadays. Any mental problem.
Unhappy wives used to hire men to fake affairs and “accidentally” get caught until the 30s when the only common American grounds for divorce was adultery. Your system needs work. Increase your marriage age to 18 for starters, you monsters. Child brides are both a Muslim and an American thing.
If you have a problem with keeping the age of consent at the age of adulthood…. what about voting?
Some simple changes and why:
- a hard limit on the number of times anyone can marry excepting widowhood.
- a grievance period for widows where marriage is not allowed, depending on how long they were married.
- if someone’s sexuality changes, they’re considered to have defrauded the other party of their agreed companionship.
- long engagements only, 6-12 months?
- one party letting themselves go completely is taken as a clinical indicator (already is) of passive-aggression or depression
- no addicts, taking up any addiction is grounds for no-fault divorce on behalf of the other party due to the brain damage effectively killing the person they married and rely upon
- marriage is not considered a license to any form of abuse, higher conduct is expected compared to strangers
- abandonment includes social, you agreed to be there for one another not at the club/bar/party
- romance must go both ways
- if someone turns out to be a psychopath (the only condition that can fake it until the wedding), divorce is allowed and the proven psychopath’s influence over the other party limited to account for their condition (ideally you test before marriage?)
- 18+, I hope this one is obvious.
- if one party works from home it is counted as work for the marriage
- real Christians only, married in a Christian ceremony
- complaining about their marriage online illegal (other people’s marital status or marriages too) – privacy law
- no atheists (think of the divorce risk), they don’t need a “piece of paper”, remember?
- adulterers can be sued again, but per act and depravity – would branding be too far?
- all bastard children from adultery aborted (risky but I’ll put it, it spares the legitimate children their rights)
- no adulterous unions could wed (because obviously they can’t be trusted with it)
- a cap on how much weddings can actually cost because... Jesus….
- earnings prior to marriage not counted in divorce proceedings, including inheritance, which skips over the spouse to the children.
I flatter myself these are common sense.
Can we kill the Nanny of the State already?
The politicians who push these laws through and the teachers who search kid’s bags for sweets like they’re guns (illegal but happens) are ALL lard-arses.
fine, I won’t buy those bars, neither will anyone else
adults have the money and won’t buy supposed child portions
communists can’t do market forces
nothing to do with currency devaluation, to pay for the newcomers, I’m sure
war on chocolate, never a war on alcohol, which contains the most natural sugar and empty calories without any balancing ingredients
name and shame companies providing what is promised? trading standards anyone?
ooh some cuck penpusher is mad at you, better run and hide those profits because they can smell money and it makes them angry
irony is working class children used to gorge thousands of calories in chocolate during the industrial revolution, to have the energy from the cheap chocolate to work; it’s actually antibiotics, GFS and carbs like bread making them fat
Use it as marketing, proud to rebel against our insane and FAT civil servants.
coffee and tea are worse for you
Fuck, why not go back to rations?
wait that would include champagne you socialist scum
If it’s about the sugar, ban it in restaurants, especially fast food – but noooooo they won’t do that. Ban butter too, processed bread and so on.
That would affect them.
No, it’s an actual paper.
The biggest problem with this population stuff is an emphasis of maths (quantity) over quality (HBD). The premise is false. Again, the premise is false:
HUMANS ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE COGS.
…Humans are not much different from animals. If one promotes the reproduction of farm horses, one receives farm horses and no racehorses. As outlined before, the power of a people depends upon its percentage of intelligent and efficient ones.
I have posted about economic prosperity and national IQ. http://wp.me/p10lxG-1t5
These cannot be produced by school and education according to demand, but they must be born before, like racehorses. It is the erroneous belief of the politically correct that ill and weak descendants, if only they are well fed and educated, would be able to uphold the high level of Western civilization or even develop it further….
…Myrdal (1940, 188ff.) wrote far‑sightedly: “The basic principle for population policy in a democratic country … is, that a very large number of births must be regarded as undesirable. … In a democratic society we cannot accept a way of things whereby the poor, ignorant, and inexperienced maintain the stock of population. … .The deepest dilemma of democratic population policy is that we do not desire … a reversal of industrialization and rationalization. … The general method of population policy can be described as a transfer of income from individuals and families without children to families with children. … In a democracy a population policy is a contradiction in itself. … It is not, like much other reform policy, the relatively simple question of inducing a majority to tax a minority for its own benefit. It is just the contrary: to ask a majority to tax itself severely in favor of a minority. For the majority of every population … consists of citizens who are either unmarried or have no child burdens at all, or only very light ones. [DS: We are already taxed AWAY from having children by high rent, utilities, clothes etc, why is it this way around, the anti-social way?]… For the overwhelming majority of every people, distributional reforms in the interest of the reproducing families mean economic sacrifice.” Until now, nowhere can such a policy or even a eugenic one be maintained in the necessary long run required for any chance of success….
Taxes are supposed to punish poor social grace, being childless by choice is anti-society, since you want everyone else to pay for your stuff in old age, why shouldn’t it tax you? At least for your pension and other costs? Or might people exempt themselves from future societal benefits if they chose to be childless? I might agree with that.
This says it all:
When the insight began, it did not immediately produce the expected consequences, and once the consequences eventuated, any effective policy is mentally handcuffed by egalitarian ideology.
And what about assistance for those with children who couldn’t have the foresight to wear a condom? Nobody ever thinks of cutting it because ‘think of the children’ but they fail to see those people chose to be reckless, yet keep their kids. Any other type of recklessness is punished.
If you’re old enough to consent, you’re able to take full legal responsibility for the child.
Over to John Stuart Mill;
“Every one has a right to live. We will suppose this granted. But no one has a right to bring children into life to be supported by other people. Whoever means to stand upon the first of these rights must renounce all pretension to the last.”
Stefan is knocking it outta the park recently. Highest quality redpill stuff.
Who turned him onto us? Anyone know?
TLDW: Social engineers are child abusers.
In one word, it comes down to Legacy. The legacy is the future.
You either have one, or you don’t. You eat the cake, or you keep the cake.
But it doesn’t last forever. Never kick the pup because the pup grows up.
We are reaching that tipping point. I saw a comment, I think it was on Vox Day’s blog, pointing out that by recreating the conditions of Weimar Germany in every system, it’s predictable what would happen next. But neolibs don’t listen to history, they’re on the Right Side… *snicker*
He’s right that the quality of men dropped before the quality of women. I feel the manosphere forgets there is another half to the equation. Post-WW, the few surviving men lived it up. Then the Sexual Revolution just happened on by shortly thereafter because women felt left out and wanted some of the attention. Men lost their motivation because sex is practically all they want from women and…. yup, that’s pretty much it. This causes the economy to tank eventually and we’ve been building up bubbles ever since (look at the time you went off the Gold Standard to cover for it, LOOK) because men buy most of the shit needed for a family from a position of surplus and women, while easier to sell to, must buy on credit.
The manosphere mocks women for saying “Where have all the good men gone“? Answer: They’re Peter Pans at home playing video games and watching porn, the Lost Boys, which hardly reflects well on men as they think it does, while all the time most of their discussions feature “Where have all the good women gone“? without a trace of self-awareness. Answer: Pump and dumps, pretty much. Not Asia. Not S. America. You chucked them, or some other guy did, and now they’re psychologically ruined by it.
Maternal instinct isn’t a myth. It’s much like paternal drive in men. Some have it, some have it strongly and some do not have it at all. Women are dumb enough to freely admit where they lie there, oblivious to how it affects their long-term value: are you pro-choice? They can only answer for themselves and only the women who state the rape/cancer exception are permissible.
Gold Standard in America: 1971. I’m sure that’s a maaaa-ssive coincidence.
UK: 1934. WW1 made us broke. However, we had similar problems:
The crisis was seen as a national humiliation.
It’s pointless for younger people to point a finger at baby boomers. Their struggle and ours are the same: and we need their votes to win power.
The sentiment is rising. Wait until my generation hear the worst of it and the harsh restrictions start coming in full throttle.
Literally ALL of the BB commentary is justified, they voted in more money for themselves en masse (not all of them granted, but enough) and it’s readily proven, usually with a hefty blow of statistics. They’re fucking terrified of the full facts coming out because it makes the hippy’s Leftie inclinations from that point onward look bad – proving that their anti-traditional policies from the social level upward will bankrupt us in the end (running out of other people’s money). There’s other articles like this one by a feminist [tagline: Young people are skint. But we can’t blame the baby boomers for ever.] but I won’t bother covering it directly for obvious reasons. This one by overgrown boy Owen has a pretense to data.
If the mantra of generational conflict was persuasive in the coalition years, the general election seems to have cemented it. The over-65s, showered with state largesse, expressed their gratitude to their Conservative benefactors in the polling booths: 47% plumped for the Tories. Among the repeatedly kicked 18-24 age group, it was a Labour landslide: 43% for Ed Miliband’s party, with just 27% opting for a candidate with a blue rosette.
Wait for it.
Though my own youthful credentials are now tenuous, it might seem natural for me to champion generational conflict, calling for a crusade against the cushioned existence of the baby boomer generations.
Don’t trust anyone over 30, they said. Until they hit 30. You don’t hear that phrase anymore. Hmm.
Wrong: the newly published report by the Ready for Ageing Alliance is right to take on “dangerous myths” that set generation against generation.
Myths? Where’s your data? They aren’t myths, they’re hard fact.
“Baby boomer”, they say, is now a term of abuse, and the conditions of pensioners are diverse.
Uhhh, it’s only a term of abuse because of how they acted. The stigma is rooted in behaviour.
They’re absolutely right, of course. According to Age UK, one in six pensioners live in poverty, or about 1.6 million people. Well over a million more are on the brink of poverty.
They chose not to save money. They spent it. That’s how money works.
You don’t get to have your cake and eat it.
I once saw a sign outside an ice cream shop that said “No OAP discount – you’ve had longer to get the money”.
Among women, single people and private tenants, the risk is even higher. Despite the fact that the state pension has been increased, it is still one of the least generous in Europe. German, French and Spanish pensioners are all at less risk of poverty.
The first women who burned bras and who proclaimed they didn’t need a man? Fish-bicycle women? The most independent in history? My heart bleeds. Bleeds, I tells ya.
It is depressing, indeed, to imagine that, in one of the biggest economies on earth, hundreds of thousands of Britons end their lives in deprivation: often in cold homes, worrying about bills, unable to enjoy the comforts that should be the reward of a lifetime of work. And this is why it is so difficult to generalise about generations, because there is a chasm between the lives of a retired miner in Ashington and a multimillionaire in their 70s.
Where are their children? Did they have any? How long have they been retired? Decades? Whose fault is that? Didn’t they make a choice in these areas? Aren’t they the ones remortgaging and going on nude cruises? Sex tourism? Spending their children’s inheritance because they can’t do anything right?
Yes, George Osborne has shielded the over-65s from much of austerity, and indeed extended to them a generosity denied to others.
Hence the WTF.
And we know young working-class and middle-class people have suffered a shellacking: the trebling of tuition fees, the attack on benefits, the scrapping of the education maintenance allowance, a slump in income, the housing crisis, cuts to youth services, the lack of secure, well-paid jobs, the rise of unpaid internships, and so on.
It’s that bad, a whole paragraph – AND SO ON.
But the lives of young people will not be improved by kicking the older generations, any more than attacking the pensions and wages of public-sector workers helps private-sector workers, or further immiseration for the unemployed benefits the low-paid.
Yes it does. Bare-faced lie. Pointing out public sector workers earn well above private helps the private workers.
Do you know WHY Baby Boomers have the power they do?
Voter turnout numbers. This is why I’m so hard on them all, despite some rare few not voting in free money at their grandchildren’s expense. They pulled record numbers at the polls and continue to do so, so every politician is sucking up to them like a hooker to a pimp. That’s the real reason. We could pull together like that before things get too bad …if everyone pulled their head out of their ass and surgically detached the dumbphone from their Kung Fu death grip.
The real targets – the financial sector that caused the crisis, or politicians inflicting unnecessary austerity, or the richest 1,000 who have doubled their wealth – are spared, and replaced by our grandparents.
Who voted in those politicians?
Which generation is running every industry in this decade? They’d have to be, what middle-aged, at least? Elderly at the top, the real power-brokers. We never saw them on trial did we, not a single one, the legals helped them out too. If we did, we’d notice they all share one thing in common – powder white hair, like the wigs of the Aristocracy before the French Revolution.
Attacking the conditions of pensioners would be yet another attack on the young.
Nominated for Orwell sentence of 2015.
Attacking the people IN power is the same thing as attacking the people with NO power.
That’s because all young people are future pensioners: all of us will one day retire.
Hold the fucking phone, Sunshine: https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/under-35-no-pension-for-you/
Stripping away benefits enjoyed by older people, or raising the retirement age, will mean that today’s younger generation will be hit by a double whammy: a standard of living now that is worse than that of their parents; and a standard of living when they retire that will be worse than that of their grandparents.
My generation are going to have a bitch fit when this one comes true and there’s no money left. Like, we go to the bank and they say there’s no such thing as a pension “pot”, maybe an IOU sign from dead people. It’ll be too late, but it’ll be funny.
But it would be suicidal for the left to indulge generational conflict for more pragmatic political reasons.
You mean how they rose to power in every other single generation ever?
Labour enjoyed its best result among 18 to 24 year-olds in May, though fewer than half voted. As is well known, nearly eight out of 10 of the heavily Tory-voting over-65s filled out a ballot paper. The solution here, of course, is twofold. Labour needs a leader with policies that can actually inspire the suffering younger generation to come out and vote, giving them confidence that politics offers solutions to the everyday problems and insecurities they face.
A shitstorm. It’s going to be a shitstorm.
The host is dead and the vultures are going to be squabbling over the fiscal corpse of the county.
They must choose, and I believe they will choose the Boomers again because like I said, turnout. There’s more time to promise the dipshit Millennials a free dinner anyway.
Moreover, Labour self-evidently needs to win over more of the older generation if it is get in power again. A good start would be to implement the policies suggested by the International Longevity Centre – and deal with the crisis of adult social care.
Childfree! Alone but not lonely!
Bet they’re regretting those abortions now.
That both we and our parents may not receive the care we need in retirement, stripping us of independence and happiness, should terrify us all.
Just the rabbits.
Because of cuts to English councils – leaving them with a gap in funding of £1.1bn – the social care sector is unable to employ the number of workers it needs.
Happy to build more mosques though. And pay legal aid to terrorists.
This is of course putting pressure on our struggling NHS.
Not the millions in population explosion the system wasn’t designed for? Check.
The longevity centre is calling for the full implementation of the Dilnot reforms, which cap individual contributions to care. For the sake of both generations, the centre also advocates incentives for downsizing, to free up family homes.
They want to make the elderly homeless. To give to the immigrants.
At the last general election Labour was committed to unpicking the universalism that should underpin the welfare state, taking away benefits from older pensioners. Partly because of means-testing, we know that many pensioners are not getting the benefits they need, suppressing their standard of living.
Cheaper champagne on their yacht.
If you have over £60k a year, about where payments cut off, you are not poor.
About £5.5bn worth of benefits – such as pension credit and housing benefit – that should be in the pockets of older people goes unclaimed each year.
That’s clever. Go with an estimate that burdens the State even more. It’s unclaimed, which means it doesn’t count on the system.
Cloward-Piven is alive and well.
Labour should be promoting universalism, because without it, many of the
pensionersvoters* who most need benefits don’t get them.
Fixed it for y’all.
Inspiring young people and addressing their problems; finally eliminating pensioner poverty; addressing social care; defending pensioners’ benefits: these are not contradictory strategies but complementary ones.
Wait, weren’t pensions and welfare supposed to end these problems? Then why have they gotten worse?
They will ensure that today’s young people can reclaim a sense of optimism for the future, rather than one of foreboding. The mantra of generational conflict is poison – and if indulged by the left, it will help to destroy the left.
Here’s the truth: he senses the end.
The end of the gravy train.
A good resource on how screwed we are is Captain Capitalism.
Video examples 1
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…..
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. 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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
“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.
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