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/
http://nchchonors.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/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.
http://neuron4.psych.ubc.ca/~schaller/528Readings/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

Is the Pill for women as bad as steroids for men?

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/time-to-take-another-look-at-the-pill

So, if widespread steroid use is discouraged for men, why haven’t the neurological effects on women of the steroid-based contraceptive pill been studied just as thoroughly? After all, the pill is the principal artificial means for controlling population and is currently being used by 100 million women each year. This includes many girls who have just entered puberty. Its cumulative effect could have a significant impact upon society….

Infertility? STD rise? It’s all about endocrine balance.

…In a challenging article in the open source journal Frontiers in Neuroscience, three Austrian researchers argue that 50 years after its introduction, it is time to assess what the chemistry of the pill does to the female brain.

oh no oh dear hides facepalm double
51 years too late.

Their survey of the literature suggests that the effects of the pill vary considerably with age and individual physiology. Finer-grained studies are needed to assess the precise effects of steroids on cognition and emotions and whether their effect is “feminizing” or “masculinizing”.

For instance, it is widely accepted that the pill affects women’s moods. In most women its use seems beneficial, but sometimes it is associated with increased rates of depression, anxiety, fatigue, neurotic symptoms, compulsion and anger. And these studies may be too positive because depressed women may have dropped out of trials. Most studies have focused only on depression, while other dimensions, like anger or empathy, have hardly been studied. So research into the effects of the pill upon emotions is far from adequate.

One particular area of concern is the pill’s effects upon teenagers. The prefrontal cortex of the brain appears to be one target of structural changes in women who use the pill. But this is an area of the brain which is not fully developed until a woman’s early 20s. What impact will early contraceptive use have upon teenagers? There is no clear answer.

Don’t give them it. That’s the medically ethical thing to do, but the feminists would go apeshit at protecting women.

The authors are not scaremongering. They don’t even seem to have any ethical objections to using the pill. They simply set out the state of current research and point out that there are significant gaps in our knowledge…..

Maybe in history books they’ll blame this for the lack of female interest in STEM. Innate biological determinism is impossible, you know, because that would affect all kinds of things, such as drug response!

Human cortical evolution gene found: ARHGAP11B

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/02/xeroxed-gene-may-have-paved-way-large-human-brain

memo: Thickness of the cerebral cortex is a good proxy for intelligence.

Several years ago, another group had discovered that this gene had arisen after an ancestral gene made an incomplete copy of itself. Because humans had the additional version whereas chimps did not, they concluded that the duplication occurred after the human and chimp lineages split off. Neither mice nor chimps have ARHGAP11B, but modern humans and their ancient relatives, the Denisovans and Neandertals, do. “That it was a human-specific gene duplication made it very exciting,” Huttner says.

You WANT wrinkles on your brain.

Drugs #101: Addiction and Physical Dependence

They’re completely separate things.
A drug is a typically organic substance that can impair physiological functioning or kill when given to the healthy population and a drug as medicine is a chemical composition that will repair your improper bodily functioning or you will die without it in an individual body, long term. Addicts may develop non-medicinal physical dependence but medically-obligated physical dependents are not addicts per se.

A drug user with medical physical dependence only can take a processed form of their medicine without the psychological effects (commonly a high) very happily whereas an addict would require the high, the specific form of drug is merely a trigger for the brain created by past memories of use by the amygdala. These extreme-intensity usage memories create many of the symptoms of withdrawal (psychosomatic) and delude the brain into believing it genuinely needs the drug e.g. claims marijuana is as healthy as a vitamin and the push to normalize (the societal danger of addict populations, social contagion and acceptability).

The sole cause of addiction beyond a doubt is beginning use in the first place. It is impossible to be addicted to (or physically dependent on) a substance the body (and brain) has never experienced. This is a self-selecting type of stupidity (hubris/arrogance) regularly found in teenagers (immature prefrontal cortex) because such users do not think or disbelieve their mind could be compromised by addiction. Their brains already create this illusion to necessitate the anticipated reward (high) prior to initial use or they wouldn’t take it (such as the processed form with no high). The foolproof layman method to test for addiction is simple: substance deprivation for a year. Prepare for a list of excuses.

A physical dependency is often created by doctors to treat patients with chronic conditions, usually chronic pain symptoms (ongoing). Addicts try to ape this category (some sincerely, others deceptively) but are increasingly thwarted by processed (reward-weakened) variants of their poison. Specific advocates for drug legalization ignore the essential fact of escalation and compensation. As part of the brain’s hedonic treadmill, it craves increasingly more of the reward from use, compelling drug users to harder toxins (harder reward, creating deeper addiction and physical damage) and this is the biological component of addiction that makes the habitual behaviour of use so challenging to physically extinguish from the brain.

Physical dependency creates withdrawal symptoms too but the patient’s individual physical needs (inc. not dying) and substance type distinguish this from addicts e.g. insulin to a diabetic.The human brain is connected to facilitate the reward response feedback loops because they are evolutionally guided by the basic needs to survive (food, water, sex) and this is why there is no such thing as a food addict, water addict or sex addict, merely people with impulse control issues seeking a social ‘displacement of responsibility’. Beyond these essential elements for the sustenance of our individual life and species general, anything chemical creating a vacuous boost in the reward system is a drug, whether you like it or not. Drug users resent the stigma for their activities whether or not their poison is legal (ethanol/alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine etc) because the positive emotional response loop (dopamine, serotonin release) caused by their usage memories creates defensive dissonance when challenged by non-users. Even polite persistent enquiry can sometimes trigger a psychotic episode where the patient is completely detached from reality and VERY DANGEROUS. This is why trained professionals intervene. In the latter stages, the drug/s become integrated into personal identity and extraction or therapeutic measures become unlikely to resolve the issue without constant medical care (rehabilitation facilities). Moreover, this reduces the risk of sudden death caused by the somatic shock of going ‘clean’ and allows overall physiological strength to be built up (reverse what the drugs did) while the problem is gradually resolved.

If a substance exists in a natural form within, say, a foodstuff, it is not addictive because food reward circuits are natural and normal and can never be extinguished. This is why milk (dairy), sugar, chocolate, chilli, coffee and caffeine ‘addiction’ is a misnomer. However, a person habitually needing a purified artificial version of these may constitute a non-medical physical dependence or perhaps a behavioural addiction e.g. alcoholism. Behavioural addictions require holistic (whole life) perspective for diagnosis e.g. someone who works online cannot be an internet addict if those hours online constitute their occupation (add to their success and life) and they can easily disconnect for a while. Behavioural addictions where they do exist are more accurately termed compulsions and relate to personality disorders or obsessions created by unmet needs. Substitution is the norm where one behaviour is broken, another is taken up. Social contagion is a significant factor for poor impulse control. Behavioural or result-based addictions when positive are discounted for lack of stigma nor bodily harm e.g. ‘high’ grades, promotion (power/status boost), painting. However, they can display withdrawal symptoms from endogenous neurotransmittor levels e.g. low serotonin creates acute compulsiveness completing the cycle to repeat a rewarding behaviour and low dopamine creates psychomotor agitation including pacing and fidgeting, also apathy, chosen social isolation and anhedonia (nothing is enjoyable and everything fast becomes boring).

 

By most definitions, Sherlock Holmes is not an addict. However, he qualifies as an addictive personality with a high arousal threshold and high need for cognition.

By most definitions, Sherlock Holmes is not an addict. However, he qualifies as an addictive personality with a high arousal threshold and excessively superhuman high need for cognition.

Related terms: Dosage Response Curve and (innate) Arousal Thresholds causative of addictive personality tendency.

Post inspired by this video, Sherlock Holmes’ withdrawal symptoms

Mark the positive addiction withdrawal symptoms from endogenous behaviour-triggered stimulation.

And yes, you can be addicted to love.