/lit/ - Literature

Same reason women have rape fantasies. Especially modern AWFLs, they're drawn to the male strength and virility of the "gangster virtues". Hell, Charles Manson got married while imprisoned.

>>14240436
It's basically one of the main reasons why young nogs, low-IQ wiggers, and wetbacks even find the gangster lifestyle so seductive to be a part of in the first place. Because more often than not, they see older gangbangers that happen to pull more tail than a toilet seat due to all the drug/robbery money they get in cooperation with their gang, and just by sheer local clout of even being associated with said gang.

>>14240493
Yeah. Very primitive monkey thinking, but that's what to expect with nogs and femoids.

>>14240493
fucking niggers man

>>14240358
Women complained a lot about the first season of True Detective not having stronk womyn. They complained that the women were either wives or victims but they still kept watching it.

They also complained rather bitterly about violence against women in Game of Thrones. But they didn’t stop watching either

What women say they want rarely coincides with what they wind up watching devotedly

/lit/‘s belief in evopsych is proof that it’s a midwit board.

>>14240544
What would be your alternative...?

>>14240358
women love sex and murder stories because they are taboo and women love transgression, feeling excited and ofc having lots of orbiters fucking them.
Then the bourgeois talk about a lot of subversion because they hate christian art and they say think bourgeois art must destroy anything christian, ie judeo christian morality.

This is why women and bourgeois are together.

>>14240572
(((Judeo-Christian)))

Women are the manifestation of primal judgement and mystery. Men figure once you're dead you're dead. Women figure if you find one loose dead body some man has left somewhere, there will be at least ten more strewn about the place unmatched, much like socks. In many ways they're more practical in their rationales.

>>14240436
Is it really a "rape" fantasy if you are in control of it and pick the man to fantasize about?

>>14240559
Literature

Or, if you want to be more scientific, something with a testable hypothesis based on wide ranging observations. All the available evidence points to the placticity of human behavior and social structures (not the same thing as blank slate). The popularity of true crime among women (really just upper middle class white women) is an anthropology question. Personally I think the explanation has to do with making safe people feel victimized, a false confirmation of their anxieties, therefore granting them the authority to speak of their “trauma”. Or it has something to do with viewing narratives that feature someone like them as an innocent aestheticized victim, where “they” have no moral culpability for anything wrong in the world (true crime is always about murders of middle class and up women. Not bank heists or more typical murder victims like the homeless).

People who jump to make it a psychosexual thing are being lazy

>>14240559
Clearly women are more attracted to sensitive men in touch with their feminine side, who aren't afraid to cry and express their emotions, and will also sacrifice their career to help raise their children.
Feminism benefits both men and women.

>>14240649
Typical tactic. You refuse a view that doesn't confirm your already established views, so you just run the hamster wheel until you manage to find a way that does confirm, or at least evades discrediting your preconceived notions.

What you say is just your headcanon of what's going on, just as baseless as the thing you refuse to consider.

>>14240687
No that’s true of your explanations

>>14240697
>N-no u!

So you admit to not having any counterarguments. I suppose that's a wrap. Thanks!

>>14240697
holy fuck, you giganigger

just call in the towel & say you give up already

>>14240572
its probably more explicitly bourgeois than you think. Upper class white women have no excitement and have a strong belief that the justice system is only used for revenge against "evil" people.

>>14240714
No, youre just clearly set on everything having to be about sex so it’ll be useless talking to you. Nothing in your post countered what I said either, just said I was “refusing other views” without saying why that was wrong. I already responded to the psychosexual explanation.

>>14240529
>What women say they want rarely coincides with what they wind up watching devotedly

One of the things about Austrian economics I like is the emphasis on revealed presence, this idea that you can know what a person wants by looking at what he does.

>>14240743
Who are you talking to? I'm >>14240687 and >>14240714. The anon you argued with beforehand was not me.

>Nothing in your post countered what I said either

Get some glasses then, and read it again.

Come on... there's nothing to be ashamed of. You just got BTFO'd, nothing serious. Why won't you stop being this obtuse deliberately, anon?

>>14240649
>true crime is always about murders of middle class and up women. Not bank heists or more typical murder victims like the homeless).
No women like to read about gay serial killers too often for this to be true. Death at White Bear Lake was fucking huge through the 90s and that's a female adult killing a male child. Women like to pass judgment in general, so the victims and perpetrators and crimes aren't as you suggest.
They also have lots of anxiety any way, so it also probably isn't (just) about making safe people feel victimised. False confirmation is closer to the mark.
Finally, true crime fans aren't limited to upper middle class women. They're tabloid crimes and very very few upper middle class women could name a tabloid. The bulk of their popularity is in the lower classes. I mean, do you also think the people who buy shittonnes of Hitler stuff are the well educated and well paid with a broad reach of knowledge, or the people who buy bargain basement books?

>>14240436
>>14240634

>>14240765
Read my post again, i never said my proposed explanation was definitive I was just saying the “women read it because it makes them horny” explanation was dumb and baseless. For explorations of human nature literature is better than evo psych, and if you want an empirical explanation then look for some field work to back it up. My proposed explanation is something that may be confirmed or maybe not, conceivably so could the evo psych one but it doesn’t fit with the way it’s been adopted and evopsych in general is a laughingstock so I’ll need more than speculation to make me take it seriously. Something like this >>14240793
is a way better response, the points about gay murder victims and tabloids are interesting.

>>14240860
Cope.

>>14240649
>Literature
So biocultural approach to literature?

>>14240649
>All the available evidence points to the placticity of human behavior and social structures (not the same thing as blank slate).
Vague.
>Personally I think the explanation has to do with making safe people feel victimized, a false confirmation of their anxieties, therefore granting them the authority to speak of their “trauma”. Or it has something to do with viewing narratives that feature someone like them as an innocent aestheticized victim, where “they” have no moral culpability for anything wrong in the world (true crime is always about murders of middle class and up women. Not bank heists or more typical murder victims like the homeless).
Speculation, or, I talk out of my ass. You:
>evopsych in general is a laughingstock so I’ll need more than speculation to make me take it seriously.

>People who jump to make it a psychosexual thing are being lazy
Not necessary the evopsych explanation.

>>14240436
>Same reason women have rape fantasies.
Men have rape fantasies as well. Read your Japanese documents.

>>14240873
Whatever you say, good luck viewing sexuality like a machine

>>14240891
>personally
I.e. I am stating that this is my speculative view

>>14240544
>psychology was bestowed upon us by an AI, it has had no development and it definitely does not interact with anything, nor is it related to anything genetic (except humans, for some reason)

>>14240892
>Men have rape fantasies as well
how many men do you know personally that have a fetish for women who engage in criminal activities & extreme acts of violence?

>>14240913
That’s not what evo psych is, evo psych is shoehorning sexual competition into everything and making up untestable stories. If it were more serious (if it’s even capable of being more serious) there would be a far greater focus on parenting

>>14240925
It makes sense for us to have multiple modes. Black men don't marry and as such, have no pressure to focus on any behavioral pattern related to parenting.

>>14240914
Do monstergirls and succubi count? Taming the wild/bad girl, fetishizing the evil villainess is quite a common fetish.
However, it's vastly different from what women are into, and I won't waste two breaths defending them and their poor taste.

>>14240914
Didn't men want to fuck Casey Anthony? They dream of taming the bad/evil girl for sure.

>>14240572
>ofc having lots of orbiters fucking them
orbiters don't fuck the women they orbit lmao

Women were presented with male characters of varying degrees of Dark Triad personality. Physicality was held constant. Men with Dark Triad traits were dramatically more attractive to women compared to control characters who lacked these traits (with >99.9% statistical certainty, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the attractiveness of these Dark Traits was not explained by other characteristics like extroversion.

Thus it seems apparent that while personality does matter to women, it does not matter in the ways they claim. Contrary to popular claims that women want a "nice, caring guy," in actual fact, they are most sexually attracted and aroused by narcissistic, manipulative, and psychopathic men.

This likely has a basis in evolutionary biology as low empathy and cruelty may have helped outcompeting other men, or even killing others for access to resources (Kruger & Fitzgerald 2011), hence psychopathy in men and women's attraction to it may have co-evolved as a reproductive strategy (Gervais 2018). Another possible explanation is that violent, callous and narcissistic behaviors are honest i.e. hard-to-fake signals of high dominance status which is determined, among other things, by good looks, financial capital and cues of physical strength. A high status man can "get away" with occasionally behaving in anti-social manner. Men may have been selected to try to mimic such dominance signals, favoring men who more likely callously use threats of force (Puts 2015). Being physically weaker, women are thought to choose the most dominant man available to them, in order to be protected from contenders (bodyguard hypothesis; Wilson & Mesnick, 1997) and to get access to high quality foods (Geary 2004). Not all men are psychopathic, presumably because prosocial competence is important too for navigating social hierarchies and managing resource extraction, so it is plausible men have evolved diverse strategies of status ascension (prestige vs dominance strategy; Kruger 2015, Gervais 2018). Women's preference for psychopathic men may also be related to rape fantasies. After all, it requires low empathy to rape someone.

>>14241000
The dark triad consists of three personality dimensions:

Narcissism (heightened sense of self-importance)
Machiavellianism (manipulativeness)
Psychopathy (low empathy)

The Dark Triad is often quantified by a quick scoring tool called the Dirty Dozen:

I tend to manipulate others to get my way.
I tend to lack remorse.
I tend to want others to admire me.
I tend to be unconcerned with the morality of my actions.
I have used deceit or lied to get my way.
I tend to be callous or insensitive.
I have used flattery to get my way.
I tend to seek prestige or status.
I tend to be cynical.
I tend to exploit others toward my own end.
I tend to expect special favors from others.
I want others to pay attention to me.

>>14241005
A team of researchers from the University of North Texas and University of Notre Dame played 355 young women a rape fantasy over headphones to investigate how aroused they became:

The tape's material tells the tale of a male protagonist who is strongly attracted to the female character. He expresses a desire for sex with her, but she's clearly unresponsive. He attempts to convince her, without success, and she continues to refuse his advances. The male character then overpowers and rapes her. She resists throughout, and at no time gives consent. However, as the man is attractive to her and provides erotic stimulation, she does experience gratification from the forced sex.

In questioning following this, researchers found that overall, 62% of participants reported having a rape fantasy of some type.

Of the women who reported having the most common rape fantasy ("being overpowered or forced by a man to surrender sexually against my will"), 40% had it at least once a month and 20% had it at least once a week.

Women reported that 45% of their rape fantasies were completely erotic and 46% both erotic and aversive. Only 9% of the fantasies are completely aversive.

It is plausible that women underreport their fantasies about rape as well as their positive emotion towards it, in order to avoid being socially undesirable given the taboos surrounding the topic.

The frequency of women's rape fantasies may be related to women's preference for low-empathy males. After all, raping someone requires indifference to their feelings. The ability to rape may also act as an honest signal of physical strength and high status, thus choosing such a male would not only provide protection and access to resources, but rapist tendencies would also confer the same fitness advantage on the offspring. The reluctance to sex and wish to be forced into sex may also test men for their physical strength, as women depend on a physically strong man to be protected, e.g. from other contenders (bodyguard hypothesis).

>>14241013

Women have a greater preference for stories of true crime than men. To evaluate the degree of this preference, researchers analyzed gender proportions of reviews on Amazon for different genres including true crime and war. They found 70% of true crime reviewers were female, while 82% of war reviewers were male, despite an overall relatively even distribution of male and female reviewers on the site in general.

The suggested that the primary reasons women might be interested in these books is for "survival tips" to avoid becoming victims themselves. Associations were found which may suggest this is in part a motivation, but these were very weak. Women's responses on evaluation of how much their reading was for "safety" were not very different from men's, and were greatly inadequate to explain the dramatic gender difference in preference for this material.

They did not attempt to evaluate to what extent female preference for these types of stories relates to other evidence such as that women are more attracted to sociopathic men, men with criminal histories have more consensual female partners, male serial killers are often inundated with female love letters (hybristophilia), women have a disproportionate preference for pornography featuring violence against women, and that most women admit to harboring "rape fantasies."

Hybristophilia is a sexual phenomenon that is defined as 'the erotic obsession with or exclusive sexual attraction with an individual who commits extremely heinous or violent crimes such as rape, murder, serial killings etc.'

According to the research that has been conducted in regards to the matter, it is a phenomenon almost completely found in women (Gurian, 2013).

Explanations for the women's attraction to these highly violent men range from a nurturing desire to 'fix' these criminals, that they desire the fame/attention that they could receive by association with the criminals and their notorious deeds, but perhaps it is more likely a byproduct of women being wired by their evolutionary past to seek out relationships with dominant and violent 'dark triad' men.

Examples of men who have received numerous love letters and even proposals from women while on trial or imprisoned are listed below.

>>14241018
Researchers sought to evaluate niceness by defining it as: "a characteristic that may signal to potential partners that one understands, values and supports important aspects of their self-concept and is willing to invest resources in the relationship." In other words, niceness is the degree to which a person understands, values, and supports his partner's identity and values and is willing to put commitment and effort into the relationship. This is also known in psychology as "responsiveness."

The researchers found that men who perceived possible female partners as responsive found them to be "more feminine and more attractive." They also found that when men found women to be responsive, it led to a heightened sexual arousal from the men and greater desire for a relationship.

On the other hand, when women perceived their male partner to be more responsive, they were less attracted to the man.

The Internet is full of women claiming the reason they "don't give nice guys a chance" is that those "nice guys" are not actually truly "nice". The more scientifically valid explanation for this behavior based on these findings is that a man's niceness does not appear to be sexually valued by women at all or is perhaps even negatively valued.

An interesting addition is that nice men have substantially lower economic success. In Judge et al. (2012), men who are one standard deviation nicer, had an 18.3% lower income. For women it's 5.47% lower, but they are more agreeable and tend to occupy positions of lower status to begin with. It pays off being disagreeable, in life as a whole, and doubly so with women because women also prefer men with high income.

>>14241018
>>14241013
>>14241005
>>14241000
>trait theory
>evolutionary psychology

Get that unscientific shit out of here

>>14241030
>tabula rasa

>>14241030
Dilate

>>14240436
This. Women are not to be taken seriously whatsoever.

>>14241044
whoever sends those letters and photos should be imprisoned for life

>>14241035
tfw you're such a young and stupid psychology student that you don't know any other psychological branches that conflicts with tabula rasa

>>14241057
I would wager the assumption is due to denying biology, which lumps you in with the largest group that does that - leftists/egalitarians.

>>14241030
>NNOOOO! NOOOOOO! STOP CITING DATA AND STUDIES! I SAID IT WAS EVOPSYCH! STOOOOOOOOOP!

>>14240529
I was so happy with how GOT ended. The 'kickass female' cliche character who feminists had loved turns out to be the final baddie who needs to be dispatched.

>>14241066
not at all. I'm just educated and know that psychological truths are more complex than what you think, kiddo.

Instead of assuming everyone here is just as stupid as you are just inverted to leftists you would be better off asking questions and reading more.

In 1-2 years i'll bet you'll laugh at yourself for being this stupid.

>>14240358
> women like manly high-T men
Wow, so complex, how could anyone fully understand that?

>>14241086
*tips*

>>14241089
It's not about that. It's the fact that they constantly lie and push many men through unnecessary hoops. Women are evil beings that only care for their own and their offspring's well-being. Hell hath no fury like that of a roastie.

>>14241018
Obviously true crime is consumed almost entirely by women, we all have eyes. This is different from developing a sexual obsession with murderers, which happens but is a rarer phenomenon and doesn’t explain why women read true crime rather than crime-themed erotica, or why the vast majority of these women do not choose to correspond with prisoners (common among women who really get sexually obsessed w/ them). It also doesn’t explain why these women (I’m willing to bet) are mostly dating and sleeping with normal men instead of seeking out someone more dangerous. You’re conflating two distinct phenomena to try to make it all about game theory sex, coombrain strikes again.

>>14241112
>are mostly dating and sleeping with normal men instead of seeking out someone more dangerous
betabux cope
she's lusting after and possibly fucking others on the side, either chad or rough men

>>14241067
Plenty of bad studies out there. Also, plenty of studies that do not show what lay readers would like them to show.

>>14241117
That’s just what you tell yourself, “I’m too kind and safe to get laid.” Maybe you’re just unpleasant.

>>14241128
>just be a dick bro
alright maybe I will try low inhib maxxing

>>14241119
>this
You could back up any statement whatsoever with data and studies. Citing data and studies is easy. Making sure that your studies are well-executed and scientific is the hard part; which evopsych rarely are.

>>14241067
Non empirical suggestions aren't data

>>14241110
>It's the fact that they constantly lie and push many men through unnecessary hoops.
And why shouldn't they? It's just a test for low T.

(You failed, BTW.)

>>14241160
How did I fail? I don't even talk to anyone.

>>14241171
> How did I fail?
By whining, complaining and rationalizing.

High-T men pass the tests (one way or another) instead of making excuses.

>>14241136
And what would be an example of a well-executed and scientific study that supports your position?

>>14240649
>All the available evidence points to the placticity of human behavior
It really, really does not lmao, there is a huge amount of consistency in human behavior across cultures.

>>14241203
Why are you judging a man's life based on acceptance by females? Pathetic. You're either a roastie or cumbrain.

>>14241258
You were the one judging and seething, you absolute moron.

>>14241233
The idea isn’t that the question “why some women like true crime” is empirically settled, maybe someday it will be. Just that the explanation that women like it because it makes them horny is being treated like a fact when there’s no evidence to support it, and it deserves skepticism because of how conveniently ties in to some anons’ sexual neuroses. All the explanations proposed are speculative.

>>14241233
These guys never have any. Their entire wordlview is a gigantic tapestry of isolated demands for rigor so that they can maintain some fairy tale view of reality

>>14241281
Ignore the "women like true crime", I am asking about evo-psych in general since it is dismissed by you.

>>14241275
No, I was just stating how they view things. You're the one that said:

>(You failed, BTW.)

Dumb hole trying to virgin shame on an anonymous forum. Cringe.

>>14240742
It’s more to do with this. A lot of well off women lack intrigue in their life, which is what the crime genre provides. There’s also a gossipy element to crime fiction since the entire genre is built on the foundations of who did what where.

>>14241303
who cares about women lacking intrigue? if we were to cater to the whims of women we would end up in the jungle again

>>14241299
Evo psych is like the same level of analysis people here applied to the women in true crime thing over and over again. If you are literate in stats and have some knowledge of experimental design (especially in the social sciences) the flaws in most evo psych research should be clear. Go find an experimental design textbook. For something kind of like evo psych but actually rigorous you can look at research by primatologist and anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy.

>>14241030
seething roastoid lmao

Has this always been since true crime existed or mostly a fad? Were detective novels also widely read by females?

>>14241344
Hrdy is literally an evolutionary psychologist and the entire framework she's using was developed by other people, literally the only thing I can possibly think of that would make you like her better than the main figures in the field is that she focused on mothers mostly and so the mainstream press gave her a bit of positive attention.

What she's doing is in no fucking way more rigorous than that Wilson or Smith were doing, especially surrounding the ESS concept

>>14241086
Except you haven't done anything to refute their claims with concrete evidence.

>>14240649
>Personally I think the explanation has to do with making safe people feel victimized, a false confirmation of their anxieties, therefore granting them the authority to speak of their “trauma”.
I like this take, Anon

>>14241413
>replying to your own post in order to safe face

>>14241233
>>14241285
A study that supports my position on why evopsych is unscientific? There's no single scientific study that claims such a statement it would be impossible even ridiculous to operationalize and quantify.

Here Cognitive Neuroscience, Philosophy of Science and clinical experience would be needed but for fun watch this TED-talk by the primatologist who coined the termed alpha male: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPsSKKL8N0s

Conclusions of his research:
>Alpha males are not the strongest apes in the group, but the empathic ones who maintain peace within the group.

>>14241344
“So if evo psych is such a mess how do they get any funding?” Great question, glad you asked: https://www.wbur.org/edify/2019/07/10/jeffrey-epstein-harvard-mit-donations

>>14241383
She is which is why I mentioned her, if you can’t see the difference between her work and asking women to judge bad drawings of men with varying levels of body hair about which drawing they’d marry and which they’d let cum inside them, that’s on you.

>>14241436
>>Alpha males are not the strongest apes in the group, but the empathic ones who maintain peace within the group.
lmaooooooooo betabux cope

>>14241436
>>Alpha males are not the strongest apes in the group, but the empathic ones who maintain peace within the group.
This would still be an evopsych proposition lmao, you're so fucking dumb

>>14241344
>>14241436Robert
Thoughts on David Buss, Melvin Konner, Robert Wright and Robert Sapolsky?

>>14241366
Agatha Christie is considered one of the most legendary authors of the genre and was female. One thing I’ve noticed is that women seem to be fascinated by murder, but it’s particularly true for middle age women. I think younger women these days are more into fantasy, but many middle age women seem to read nothing but murder mysteries and romance novels.

>>14241465
the young ones have fun on the carousel but they start watching crime shows and anything with gossip later on when they become cat ladies or wives for some depressing beta worker drone

>>14241443
Do you seriously think some woman like Hrdy is more important to the field than John Maynard Smith? She is guilty of every last criticism of evopsych being just so stories that exists. I don't think you've actually read fuck all from the field at all., you've probably been given a small selection of studies you were allowed to read because they had palatable conclusions, and were told they were the only valuable results in the field.

>>14241448
Alpha males in human societies have been debunk. Why are ppl still talking about it?

>>14241448
No it's not an evopsych proposition. It's a evolutionary biology - which is a much more scientific discipline than evopsych - finding that contradicts previous statements about women, women, high ranking males and empathy.

>"males who are good at these two, keeping the peace and providing the comfort [...] end up the most succesfull leaders and [...] the bullies end up in a very bad position"

>No it's not an evopsych proposition. It's a evolutionary biology
You can't make this shit up.

>>14241484
evopsych is literally a subset of evolutionary biology and
>>14241484
>>"males who are good at these two, keeping the peace and providing the comfort [...] end up the most succesfull leaders and [...] the bullies end up in a very bad position"
this is fucking evopsych. It is a statement about reproductive success due to the psychology and behavior of an animal

>>14240358
Wait, women like dope shit too? Damn, they're just like me...

>>14241464
We are 2 guys i'm the guy who wrote >>4241436. Don't know them firstly i'm not studying at the universities 3 of them are connected too, and i don't spend my time reading evopsych popular books and authors. I had 2 courses about it which IMO was more than enough i could tell from the very first lecture that evopsych was some bullshit. For your reference i'm soon a neuropsychologist.

>>14241499
>>14241498
The difference between evopsych and evolutionary biology is that the former, makes statements are human psychology, while the latter usually refrains itself to the study of animals.

How is this difference a surprise to you? Do you think human and lizards have accordingly complex minds?

>>14241474
I don’t, evolutionary biology is actually a real field of study unlike evo psych. I only brought up Hrdy because she also does evo psych while avoiding the “rate these drawings for how sexy they are” finding that makes up the rest of the field, but I probably overstated how credible I find her to be in that other post as I’m skeptical of evo psych in general.

To be clear I am not the person who posted a ted talk as they’re also bad.

schuon debunked evolution you utter retards

>>14241086
>that psychological truths are more complex than what you think, kiddo.
>than what you think
You have no idea how deep I think the psychological rabbithole goes, so why the hostility?
> Instead of assuming everyone here is just as stupid as you are
Why the hostility?

>>14241203
This isn't an open space. Plenty of us can be complete liars in public.

>>14241532
I'm not this guy

>>14241514
I'm this guy but i acknowledge my other bro here unlike many people in this thread isn't a dumbass

>>14241546
because you showed extreme arrogance and condenscending attitude. Are you surprised to be met with hostility?

Also the internet brings the worst out in people

>>14241532
studying psychology from evolutionary biology is literally "evo psych" jesus christ man

>>14241530
First of all this is not true, the majority of the foundational theories of sociobiology were done looking at animals not humans, and secondly it's a difference of complexity, not an entirely different field. Comparisons of humans to other primates are done for this exact reason, that they are relatively similar to each other.

>>14241532
>avoiding the “rate these drawings for how sexy they are” finding that makes up the rest of the field,
you simply don't know anything about the field if you think that is representative of it. Have you even read a basic textbook like Wilson's Sociobiology?

>>14241583
Ofcourse everything is not black and white and ofcourse humans have a certain amount of biological determination in their behavior however it is highly scientifically critizeable to make inferential conclusions about the psyche of humans and the psyche of animals even if you belive that they are relatively similar.

>>14241583
And if you are the one that posted: The frequency of women's rape fantasies may be related to women's preference for low-empathy males. After all, raping someone requires indifference to their feelings. The ability to rape may also act as an honest signal of physical strength and high status, thus choosing such a male would not only provide protection and access to resources, but rapist tendencies would also confer the same fitness advantage on the offspring. The reluctance to sex and wish to be forced into sex may also test men for their physical strength, as women depend on a physically strong man to be protected, e.g. from other contenders (bodyguard hypothesis)."

Then by the fact that that is evopsych is a less scientifically sound field than evolutionary biology, and that a top researcher in apes in mating, alpha males and sexual behavior has meassured even the highest levels of empathy in alpha males (even higher than the females in the group!) i would say your statement seems to be based on a pretty weak scientific basis

>>14241583
Wouldn't you agree, m8?

>>14241583
>>14241610
>>14241627
>>14241633
And last but not least remember that this critique is theory internal. I'm not disapproving your statements by pulling out some counter theories from cultural psychology or whatever. Even within your field there's such conflicting views upon mating behavior and sexuality that one should thread carefully when making any conclusions especially as to making terrible statements on all women and pseudodefending raping women and the typical incel mindframe.

In fact i believe that you believe in your theories solely because they conform to your misogynistic worldview. Mate i'm not denying the sexual game of 2019 is absolutely terrible but free yourself from this bullshit, become a better man and a woman will follow.

>>14241627
I didn't post that for one thing, and for another (some) women being attracted to low empathy males or being attracted to high empathy males who are dominant in the tribe, because they each represent a successful reproductive strategy, is not a contradiction. One of the most basic understandings in evopsych is that multiple strategies will exist in a population(even within a single individual).

For the hundredth time also, the 'top researcher in apes in mating' idea you keep bringing up about empathic alpha males, that is literally evolutionary psychology, which is not distinct from evolutionary biology in any way, it follows the exact same logic.

>>14241464
I’m the other guy, I also don’t keep up with popular evo psych literature. My background is more zoology (Lepidoptera, and my dad was a marine biologist so I know a decent amount about that too). Obviously evolutionary biology and genetics are relevant to me as well, and I know enough to recognize when a field of study is reputable and when it’s bullshit. Even if you have a minimal background in evolutionary biology it’s obvious that evolutionary psych is a sham and not up to the standards of serious scientific study (it is not a subset of it, contra >>14241499
[you are right that the alpha male thing is evo psych tho]).

This guys >>14241514
background seems to be closer to the subject directly at hand and he can probably answer questions I couldn’t about research involving human subjects and human psychology, I just know enough to spot bad research and bad conclusions when I see them, and basically everything I’ve seen that’s called “evo psych” falls into that category.

>>14240358
Here's a protip. Women just wanna get killed.

>>14241658
Again Im not that guy, and while people are too quick to dismiss the ideas you're associating with incels because they're unpleasant, they are obviously hugely simplistic and don't take into account many other factors like monogamous pairbonding and the general need for social cohesion in a tribe

>>14241665
It is impossible to study the evolutionary biology of animals without taking into account their behavior and therefore their psychology. This division between the two you think exists is imaginary

>>14241661
You do not know what evolutionary biology is if you think it is the same as evolutionary psychology, you would know this if you had even a tiny background in biology. I guess I shouldn’t expect much, we’re on /lit/ after all where people vacillate between “STEM is useless” (for most things) and what “I fucking love science” would be if the original facebook page was restricted to incels.

>>14241688
This has to be bait

>>14241688
I can’t wait to go to grad school for math psychology

>>14241711
*moth psychology

>>14241700
Evolutionary psychology is a part of evolutionary biology, it studies how the behavior of animals evolved in tandem with their other phenotypes. How do you study the evolution of the wing without taking into account the behavior of flying?

>>14241711
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00302942

I don’t understand why this fact may lead anyone to misogyny. If you really think women having sexual preference for mate that are aggressive and psychopathic is an indication of the rest of their qualities, you have some self-evaluation to do about your own sexual preference. Half this site wants to fuck little girls or dumb bimbos instead pf industrious or intelligent girls who aren’t as attractive. The whole point of ethics in human society is to elevate us from the statis of beast and bring into conscious attention values and qualities in people that are abstractly attractive, instead of intuitively attractive. So what if the primtive core of your brain wants big boobs and ass, you know better. And so what if woman’s wants a psychopathic gigachad, most kf them know better and keep that stuff in tbe realm of fantasies. Most people want whats best for them and their behaviors reflect that. The fixation here on unconscious desires neglects the fact that their is a reason for their being unconscious. It’s true tbat there are certain mechanisms in today’s society that allows people to express these unconscious desires and attempt to satisfy them, but what this does is segment the polulation between people who do and those who don’t. These mechanisms only offend ot hinder you if you fixate your attention to the opposite groups from yours. Also, desires are misleading. Every satisfied desires is grounds for new desires. How many women end up happy with a psychopath? How many men end up happy with a bimbo? It’s worth noting how caught up and fixated misogynist are with sexuality, that is, how their entire evaluation of a woman’s worth is concerned with her sexuality. That’s why “incel” is such a powerful term, it inverts their logic. I think I forgot the point of this post.

>>14241718
Observing animal behavior is not “psychology”

>>14240687
Holy fuck the autism of this post is astounding
>le topical scheme x)
Did it never occur to you your very post could be applied to your own point of view ? Faggots using semantics and pseudo intellectual reasonning to unwillingly confirm their own bias are the fucking worse

>>14241735
Since sociobiology and evolutionary psychology are the same field, yes it does, which you would know if you knew literally anything about it. It is literally the study of evolved behavior, which by the way is controled by nervous systems, ie. it's psychology

>>14241727
Do you think that is psychology? Seriously?

>>14241748
It's an animal reacting to a stimulus and behaving in a certain way so yes

>>14241747
>which by the way is controled by nervous systems, ie. it's psychology
Factually, and etymologically incorrect. If it’s concerned with nervous systems, its neurology. Psychlogy derives from psyche, which is the Greek word for soul. Psychology treats the unitary entity of experience, or The Mind.

>>14241762
That's not what evolutionary psychology is, it studies the behavior of humans as if they were animals that evolved, because they are

>>14240358

>At any given literary festival, 90 per cent of my audience will be women.

so women are obsessed with literary festivals.

>>14241747
Neurology is not psychology, studying insect mating patterns is not psychology, crude materialism doesn’t get you out of this. Evolutionary psychology isn’t evolutionary biology, zoology isn’t chemistry, chemistry isn’t particle physics. It is insane how you guys don’t understand this.

>>14241751
Your psychology’s interesting I’ll give you that.

>>14241781
>Evolutionary psychology isn’t evolutionary biology,
Do you understand that this statement is tantamount to saying our psychologies did not evolve? That our behavior has nothing to do with evolution?

>>14241776
Then it’s a behavioral science, not a psychology, unless it treats and explains experience. Look into Mead’s Social Behaviorism so you can see the difference. A study doesnt have the right to consider itself a psychology unless it treats provate experience. It can do so in terms of objectively observable behavior (sich as Behaviorist Psychology).

But you deviate from my previous point. The stidy of nervous systems is not psychology. It’s nerulogy or neurosceince. Psychology treats experience.

>>14241793
I believed evolution not just impacted but created “psychology” but you and others in this thread are making me doubt it.

>>14240572
>Burgoise are against christianity
T. Christcuck Bourgoise

>>14241815
But they're all literally the same thing, the nervous system, the behavior of the animal, and the experienced psychology are all created by evolution because they correspond to the animal's reproductive success

>>14241729
mashallahpilled