/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7380591]

Has "alpha fux and beta bux" been empirically proved by biology and sociology at this point?

[Anonymous No.7380592]

in b4 >>>/r9k/

[Anonymous No.7380600]

>>7380591
Nope.
1. This has nothing to do with biology
2. Sociology isn't a science
3. You can't prove things in science anyway
>>>/r9k/

[Anonymous No.7380650]

>>7380591

Of primary cosmic rays, which originate outside of Earth's atmosphere, about 99% are the nuclei (stripped of their electron shells) of well-known atoms, and about 1% are solitary electrons (similar to beta particles). Of the nuclei, about 90% are simple protons, i. e. hydrogen nuclei; 9% are alpha particles, and 1% are the nuclei of heavier elements, called HZE ions. A very small fraction are stable particles of antimatter, such as positrons or antiprotons.

The flux of incoming cosmic rays at the upper atmosphere is dependent on the solar wind, the Earth's magnetic field, and the energy of the cosmic rays. At distances of ~94 AU from the Sun, the solar wind undergoes a transition, called the termination shock, from supersonic to subsonic speeds. The region between the termination shock and the heliopause acts as a barrier to cosmic rays, decreasing the flux at lower energies (≤ 1 GeV) by about 90%

[Anonymous No.7380654]

>>7380650
/thread

[Anonymous No.7380657]

>>7380591
>Scientifically proven!!

[Anonymous No.7380698]

>>7380591
I don't know but it's just been proved that pic makes me hard.

[Anonymous No.7381281]

>>7380591
alpha fucks is definitely true.

http://www.acha-ncha.org/docs/ACHA-NCHA-II_ReferenceGroup_DataReport_Fall2010.pdf

The top 2.6% of men are responsible for 29% of the hookups. The top 5.4% are responsible for 40% of the hookups. The top 28% of the men are responsible for 78% of the hookups.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.6231.pdf

twice as many female ancestors as male.

[Anonymous No.7381287]

>>7380600
>1. This has nothing to do with biology
female and male sexual strategy has everything to do with biology.

[Anonymous No.7382146]

Biology Science = Yes
Sociology = Not a science

Personally if I was him I'd be smacking her butt not tying her flipping shoe.

[Anonymous No.7382166]

>>7380591

[Anonymous No.7382209]

>>7381281
>>7382166
I feel redpilled

[Anonymous No.7382226]

>>7382166
how is okcupid representative of anything besides men and women who use online dating services?

[Anonymous No.7382235]

>>7382226
How are most psych studies representative of anything besides psychology undergrads?

[Anonymous No.7382239]

>>7382166
>thus, once more the myth that women are less shallow than men is obviously false
wut?
female -> male message ratio seems to indicate women being willing to message a lot more supposedly ugly men, and in fact it seems to trail off the more attractive the male?
So what this tells us that for men: more attractive women = more messages, but for women: more attractive men != more messages, meaning women favor something other than looks.

[Anonymous No.7382242]

>>7382166
loool. i made this fake chart years ago. it gave me a smile to see people are posting this.

[Anonymous No.7382292]

>>7382242
Tits or gtfo cumdumpster.

[Anonymous No.7382294]

>>7380650
thread should have ended here

[Anonymous No.7382295]

>>7382166
I cant read these fucking graphs

[Anonymous No.7382296]

>>7381281
>The top 2.6% of men are responsible for 29% of the hookups. The top 5.4% are responsible for 40% of the hookups. The top 28% of the men are responsible for 78% of the hookups.

I notice you don't give equivalent data for women, since that would show that it doesn't support r/redpill shit at all, but rather just that some people, male AND female, are just sluttier than others. Which, no shit.

[Anonymous No.7382306]

Real life looks more like this. Obviously some people have more sex than others, but it's nothing like r9k says.

[Anonymous No.7382321]

>>7382306
seeing sluts and players everywhere. Is this data real? I mean it could really be structured like this. But it also needs dots for all the virgins to act sort of as a control group.

[Anonymous No.7382355]

>>7382296

Not that I'm too much into this fixation on "mating strategy". But I think it is true that people on average have about twice as many female ancestors than male ancestors, and I also believe it makes sense when considering the the very uneven parental investment between the sexes due to women becoming pregnant and being able to only bear about 20 children tops in their lifetime, and men being theoretically able to father thousands of children (I think some Sultan had 1600).

Also it fits in with my perception of other people my age. Women tend to be more selective, to discern men more quickly as mating partners than do men with women, and to absolutely LOVE a man that is promiscuous and "can have any woman he wants".

[Anonymous No.7382378]

>>7382306
>real life looks more like this picture of a high school study

[Anonymous No.7382379]

>>7382355
>But I think it is true that people on average have about twice as many female ancestors than male ancestors

This is true, but bear in mind that this includes, for example, long stretches of time when roughly half of all males would die in warfare. Acting like that fact is somehow representative of present society is idiotic.

[Anonymous No.7382383]

7382378

Problem? If anything, the high school environment should look MORE like what r9k claims it does, since a whole cross section is thrown together, nobody is artificially constrained by marriage, etc, and everyone is at their horniest. Yet it looks absolutely nothing like the alpha/beta shit.

[Anonymous No.7382390]

>>7382306
>real life looks more like this high school study of one grade

>>7382296
I couldn't be bothered. I'm not a red pill person, I just like evolution and its ultimate instead of proximal answers. If you do it yourself I guarantee that the women would have more even spread of hook ups. I'm interested to see your reasoning on why you think males and females would have the same results.. especially considering women have a greater potential cost. Unless you believe in human mind blank slate?

[Anonymous No.7382391]

>>7382321
this

>>7382383
>nobody is artificially constrained
wrong, social norms ate instilled during this time

[Anonymous No.7382395]

It can't be proven because it's not what the masses want/need to hear.
The idea is that we are all rational equal agents when it comes even to dating preferences.
Welcome to social sciences.

[Anonymous No.7382423]

>>7382321
>seeing sluts and players everywhere.

There are some, yes, but the large majority of both sexes have 1-3 partners. And more importantly, the sexes are appriximately symmetrical.

>Is this data real? I mean it could really be structured like this.

Yes, it's real. It's from a large study in the 90s.

>But it also needs dots for all the virgins to act sort of as a control group.

True. IIRC something like 40% had no partners, but that wasn't included on this particular graphic.

[Anonymous No.7382427]

>>7382395

Nice strawman, faggot. Nobody is saying "we are all completely rational agents," they're saying YOUR story is bullshit. It's like when conspiracy theorists get mad when you tell them lizard people aren't running things and they sarcastically reply "right, because of course the government never lies!"

Yes, we are products of evolution. And you don't understand evolution.

[Anonymous No.7382486]

>>7382427
lmao could you be more buttblasted?

[Anonymous No.7382497]

>>7382486
there's nothing funny about ignorance, my friend

[Anonymous No.7382499]

>>7382423
>And more importantly, the sexes are appriximately symmetrical.
Not even close.
In case you haven't noticed, 20% of the guys get 80% of the hookup sex because ANY single guy will fuck almost any single girl, while most girls wouldn't touch the average guy with a ten foot pole.
I'm sure it doesn't seem this way if you're in the 20%.
"Aw shit, all you need is a little confidence and you'll be rolling in pussy, brah"

[Anonymous No.7382505]

>>7382499
>because ANY single guy will fuck almost any single girl
Speak for yourself if you're a dog that can only live panting mindlessly over pussy. You seem to talk like you've got a lot of problems, but it's clear to me you don't have half the issues some other people might.

Quit your whining and work on yourself. If you truly want sex, you'll get sex. If you're conflicted, you won't. Get over it.

[Anonymous No.7382514]

>>7382499
>Not even close

So demonstrate that. Note, r9k posts are not valid citations.

[Anonymous No.7382518]

>>7382486
>lol I was only pretending to be retarded! umad? omg u so mad!

We both know you were being serious and we both know you're the one who is angry at life.

[Anonymous No.7382520]

>>7382518
good projection!

[Anonymous No.7382530]

>>7382514
>So demonstrate that. Note, r9k posts are not valid citations.
Go outside once.
Meet some people.
The pickup scene has a 3 or 4 to one ratio of guys to girls.

>>7382505
>If you truly want sex, you'll get sex.
Too late, I'm married.


But thanks to both of you for proving:
>>7382499
>I'm sure it doesn't seem this way if you're in the 20%.

[Anonymous No.7382536]

>>7382530
>But thanks to both of you for proving:
I'm not in the 20%, I'm a 21 year old virgin. Keep claiming you're married though, if you really are, it's a shame you still haven't managed to find peace with yourself.

[Anonymous No.7382541]

>>7382536
>I'm a 21 year old virgin.
>knows about getting laid
what/

[Anonymous No.7382543]

>>7382536
>I'm not in the 20%, I'm a 21 year old virgin
So.... you're a 21 year old virgin who says I'm wrong about casual sex being sex being rarer for most guys than some?
Wow.
Do you come here just for the embarrassment of being wrong about stuff?

[Anonymous No.7382551]

>>7382543
No, I'm someone who's telling you your perspective is skewed. You don't have an accurate perspective of the whole and you're using seemingly made up figures to draw equally skewed implications from. It's all very narrow and it feels you aren't really thinking too much about what you're saying.

>Do you come here just for the embarrassment of being wrong about stuff?
I originally came here to ask if anyone had access to a paper on salsolinol, and was very surprised when an anon provided it. Against my better judgement I let myself get attached and curious how things here worked instead of leaving and staying gone.

[Anonymous No.7382568]

>>7382166
The person who made this has shit writing skill.

[Anonymous No.7382618]

>>7382530
>Go outside once.
>Meet some people

In other words, you've got nothing.

[Anonymous No.7382625]

>>7380591

No shit. What more do you need to see?

Females mate with the best genetic specimens: the alpha males. They are driven to do so, in the best interest of the species. To the contrary, the genetic material of the beta has negligible value; the beta is expendable.

Ideally, the females have commitment and, along with it, resources and security from the alpha. However, this is not always the case. This is where the AFBB dichotomy arises: as the female cannot obtain resources of the alpha, she will seek such from the beta as she raises the children of the alpha. This is the dual-mating strategy. AFBB.

[Anonymous No.7382633]

>>7382625
>the beta is expendable.
Actually, I'd say males in general are expendable. Hierarchical associations are a bit more complex than you're implying, as it's normally men directly or indirectly sending other men to their deaths. That can't be cleanly resolved to a competition between alphas, betas will often swarm alphas, etc, and the delineations break down.

It's a neat idea, but it's of limited utility.

[Anonymous No.7382640]

>>7382395
>that fucking comic
describes this thread perfectly, top kek.

[Anonymous No.7382670]

[Anonymous No.7382675]

>>7382423
>>There are some, yes, but the large majority of both sexes have 1-3 partners.
over what period of time ?

there are partners for one nights which are easily forgotten and partners which last longer while being just as casual as the ONS.


also, once you are in a relationship, you still can get extra partners, especially with time as boredom sets in.

[Anonymous No.7382680]

>>7382675
reminder that this was before the web 2.0

[Anonymous No.7382683]

This thread is some kind of weird rationalizing of OPs inability to find a mate.

[Anonymous No.7382771]

>>7382625
>What more do you need to see?

Anything remotely scientific.

[Anonymous No.7382821]

>>7382239
You're misreading the graphs. The one saying women aren't shallow is II b. where you can clearly see a correlation more than linear between attractiveness and messages received for both men and women. The more attractive you are=the more the opposite sex messages you.

You seem to be going based on the one below that which is how successful the messages are, which is more based on how the attractive person responds to being messaged, and I think the most difficult to draw any conclusions from.

[Anonymous No.7382851]

>>7382520
bazinga

[Anonymous No.7382854]

>>7382499
After 29 years on this earth, I agree with the sentiment that most guys would fuck significantly below their standards, while girls are the gatekeepers.

The people responding with "hurr, yeah speak for yourself" are just, so I assume, people who don't feel comfortable initiating with a girl out of fear and inexperience. But if you knew you couldn't fail and weren't afraid of babies/viruses, you would fuck one new chick you see on the street every second day, even if she is not even hotter than you are. Pussy and mouth of a new girl always feels better than your hand.

Meanwhile girls, if they overcome themselves, could literally get sex with 3 new guys every second day without having to pay for it - but they don't do it.

[Anonymous No.7382866]

>>7382854
>But if you knew you couldn't fail and weren't afraid of babies/viruses, you would fuck one new chick you see on the street[...]
Like I already said, speak for yourself.
I think the worst and most prevalent fallacy about men is that we're all sex machines lacking any complexity or desire beyond the inherent baseline of fucking nearly anything that moves. I have to wonder if you're even male yourself.

I'm nothing if not problems. I don't have time, I don't want the attachment, and I don't like the clutter. Not everyone is you.

[Anonymous No.7382881]

>>7382625
I don't know if this is /hm/, /fit/, or /r9k/ influence or a mix of all, but please do yourself a favor and go outside. I know this just sounds like mocking or whatever, but really, do it man

[Anonymous No.7382884]

>>7382306
That's an interesting study, but it is limited in that it deals with adolescents. Was anyone else here only really sexually successful between the ages of 16-20? Like, I've had sex with 4 girls and a load of other casual partners, but only one in university

[Anonymous No.7382911]

>>7382866
>most prevalent fallacy about men is that we're all sex machines lacking any complexity or desire beyond the inherent baseline of fucking nearly anything that moves.
That's a straw man.
Nobody's saying we aren't complex, nor is anyone saying our ONLY desire is sex.
But men do have far more "biological imperative" built in than women.
Men settle, women don't.

[Anonymous No.7382944]

>>7382911
>That's a straw man.
Straw man implies intent, and purpose. This interpretation unfortunately tells me a lot about you, and a lot about this conversation. Margin of error remains to be seen.

>Men settle, women don't.
You just rephrased the same thing a different way. My answer remains the same.

Sorry anon. I'm not interested. Don't accuse someone of making a straw man while nearly in the same breath making one of your own.

[Anonymous No.7383072]

>>7382911
>Nobody's saying we aren't complex,
>Men settle, women don't.

lel

[Anonymous No.7383157]

>>7382944
You responded here like you were talking with only one person but I only commented once, namely in (>>7382854).
I'm a man and as complex as it goes, but yeah I kind of think men are "sex machines". I think women are too, though. It's getting too fuzzy.

[Anonymous No.7383177]

>>7382306
it is weird to think some people have had sex, friendships, and casually fuck while I've only ever had tentative friendships at best. I don't think I've ever touched a girl my age even, fuck.

[Anonymous No.7383194]

how could I have twice as many female ancestors unless incest happens?

[Anonymous No.7383195]

>>7383177
Think of your parents?

Also, you can touch a girl your age just by going to Starbucks, asking for an extra spoon and accidentally touching your hand while you do it. You're welcome.

Extending your line of thought, though, it always amazed me how many different individual amateur porn videos there were - that is, how many girls would actually participate in this. However, today, since 5 years or so post-everbody-got facebook, and with instagram, it only surfaces (at least to me) how much really girls need attention and validation from displaying their body. There are millions of half-naked selfies alla
http://imgur.com/r/RealGirls
and it'll put an interesting spin on the feminist narrative which since ever used the argument of how much bad men objectify the female body.
Because I just read this up: I'm also interest to see how virus contraction goes up with the dating site boom. I think every fifth girl has it or so, so any of the chicks with 10+ tinder fucks should already do (even if it doesn't break out). How was this in the 70's?

[Anonymous No.7383199]

>>7383194
It's soft incest if the parents of your different grandparents were kids of the same alpha.

Genghis Khan raped the shit out of the cities he claimed, had sex slaves etc.
He had over 1000 kids and at least Wikipedia claims every 200'th human today is related to him.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_the_most_children

[Anonymous No.7383200]

>>7382235
This is why psych isn't a science

[Anonymous No.7383203]

>>7382391
>wrong, social norms ate instilled during this time
Yet the young rebel against those very norms

[Anonymous No.7383206]

>>7382530
>Go outside once.
>Meet some people.
I've done so, my data refutes your own

[Anonymous No.7383238]

why would they want to be with attractive, socially successful people?

[Anonymous No.7383251]

>>7383195
It is literally because it is their natural instinct to advertise the only commodity from which their only value is derived. Ever noticed how it is only the women who pose for pictures un-jokingly and always pull off 'the face'? It may seem like an innocent natural momentary smile caught in that picture, but that is far from the reality. Look at her other pictures and notice it's exactly the same fucking smile in every one of them. Even the facial angles are identical. That's because they literally practice it infront of the mirrors and by taking pictures of themselves. They have even the smallest details worked out. Every fucking selfie is an ad, even if that bitch already has a guy. That's just how they work.

[Anonymous No.7383278]

>>7383251
Okay, I'd like an opinion on another phenomenon - I can't say it extends to other guys though.
When I'm with a girl, I tend to want naked pics from her. I ask, if I think the'll send them, and some chicks just like to show off their new underwear or whatever. HOWEVER, I recognize that while I initially ask for it, I hardly ever come back to those pics. Why do I ask in the first place? Is it just the interaction in the moment? It's like going to the store and buying for buying sake.
My other idea is that it's a body count thing. Evidence.

[Anonymous No.7383286]

>le sociology isn't a science meme

stay mad /sci/fags

[Anonymous No.7383294]

>>7383278
>My other idea is that it's a body count thing. Evidence.
Probably that. The knowledge that you could if you wanted. And the ability to brag about it.

[Anonymous No.7383297]

>>7382383
>>7382391

Also, this is self-reported, and the distortions occuring when people self-report in particular their sexual activity are well-known. You may have heard of the fact that the sum of intercourses of heterosexual women is markedly lower than the sum of intercourses of heterosexual men in multiple surveys, based on self-reports. This is of course mathematically impossible when assuming one-on-one intercourse.

[Anonymous No.7383923]

Can the people who think men and women have the same spread of sexual partners please explain why? It makes more sense for women to be more careful with who they sleep with than men, since for our entire evolutionary history they have had a much greater potential cost from sex compared to men.

You can clearly see the difference is sexuality between the sexes by looking at gay and lesbian people.
http://www.ashr.edu.au/pdf/sex_in_australia_2_summary_data.pdf
>Among gay and bisexual men the mean was 96, reflecting higher rates of casual sex between men
>Among lesbian and bisexual women the mean was 6


>>7382423
>Yes, it's real. It's from a large study in the 90s.
Your picto-graphic doesn't show a large study, its shows 1 class from Jefferson high school. The other studies posted in this thread are much larger but you're dismissing them. Your study does not say what 'romantic relations' means either. Does that mean they went on a date and kissed?

>There are some, yes, but the large majority of both sexes have 1-3 partners. And more importantly, the sexes are appriximately symmetrical.
wheres your evidence? >>7382680 and >>7381281 both have studies showing the top percentage of men fuck a disproportionate amount of women, while women have a much more even spread of sexual partners.

>>7382499
>In case you haven't noticed, 20% of the guys get 80% of the hookup sex
>>7382514
>So demonstrate that
Please refer to --> >>7381281 and >>7382680. Not 20-80 but pretty close.

>>7383177
You come from an unbroken line of biologically successful people, anon. You can probably do it if you didn't waste time consuming media.

>>7383199
related:
http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/17-to-1-reproductive-success

[Anonymous No.7384106]

>>7380591

[Anonymous No.7384119]

>>7383200
I wouldn't discredit the whole field, but yeah. it makes it problematic for sure. It's also why I crack up when /sci/ acts as if any sort of experimentation makes a field more rigorous. Human experiments are almost always conducted with convenience sampling. I'll take a randomly selected nationwide poll over an experiment of psych students at a university in california any day.

[Anonymous No.7384128]

>>7383286
Sociology is an academic area of study, sure. It's not a science strictly speaking, however, as it does not follow the scientific method. This is true for all social sciences. Even ones that do experimentation cannot isolated single variables at a time, which is necessary to be truly rigorous.

The problem is that even in that area, sociology pales in comparison to its contemporaries like psychology, economics, and even political science. Its statistical analyses are often not very robust and there's a significant amount of rejections of certain hypotheses at face value for not being politically correct. There are good, smart, scientific people in teh field, for sure, but it's full of people who are not so much.

[Anonymous No.7384189]

thanks to porn where the masturbator is is in a situation of passivity towards the sexuality, more and more men love to share their women and watch them being fucked by others

women are automatically fucked by more and more men, with their BFs tolerating or encouraging their GFs. (and of course, women will not refuse)

[Anonymous No.7384308]

>>7384189

Epic shit posting mate.

>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.7384502]

>>7381287

Nooo! It's because grills don't go after nice guys and I'm alsways friendzoned!!

[Anonymous No.7384556]

>>7384189
It all depends on how the person experiences and the type of porn, all of which are mediated by deeper psychological factors. If they're apt to experience porn through a voyeuristic or "passive" (there but not truly involved) lens, chances are they'd be prone to that behavior and mindset elsewhere to begin with.

A good deal of the time I just look at women alone. If there's a male or a dick involved, sometimes I suppose it'd be a passive role (how else can you process it), sometimes it's used as a loose self insert, usually both and sometimes neither. In actuality, I don't get along with other people at all, I'm rigid and uncompromising, and do not like to share. I'm apt to either cut ties, remain detached and usually cut ties eventually, or use force to "solve" issues. It's all very primal, and I tend to default to the first two, which is ultimately avoidant behavior.

Your ideas are broken and do not properly describe even a small sliver, must less the whole. Keep working on it. Also, stop visiting /b/ and 4chan in general for a while, they'll warp you somethin' awful.

[Anonymous No.7384563]

>>7381287
> female and male sexual strategy has everything to do with biology.
confirmed for not studying biology.
Please fuck off to wherever you came from
>>7384502
nice /pol/-tier response.
I'm sure they miss you
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.7384575]

>>7384563
>> female and male sexual strategy has everything to do with biology.
>confirmed for not studying biology.
>Please fuck off to wherever you came from

Am i wrong just because you say I am? or do you have an argument?

I have studied biology btw. I cant wait to hear why you think sex isn't related to biology.

[Anonymous No.7384835]

someone post this in the other thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKNAzl-XN4I#t=0h31m

the observation 31 minutes in, for some animals, are related to this topic.
Haven't watched this is full yet, though.

[Anonymous No.7384875]

Question because I see several "redpill threads" also on /fit/ and /lit/:

Is this going mainstream now?

On the one side I'd like to see more people speak up against women quota (it's getting crazy in academic and tech now, and my country even demands 20% of public channel tv content to have female directors now),
but on the other hand I don't want the streets and clubs to be invaded by more "educated" people / PUA motivated guys that approach every single girl.

[kill yourself No.7384977]

>>7380600
>human mating choices has nothing to do with biology
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.7385013]

>>7384575
Human beings are biologically cultural creatures, so it's really impossible to separate culture from biology. This is why the way sex is conducted varies widely from culture to culture, with mating patterns being very different depending on where and when you are.


Consider the same case with bonobos and chimps. They're not genetically different enough for genetics to account for all variation in sexual behavior (though it likely does account for some). A bonobo raised among chimps would be less sexual than those raised among bonobos and vice versa.

[Anonymous No.7385031]

>>7385013

Hahaha you're such a moron hahahaha

[Anonymous No.7385049]

>>7382306
>that isolated guy with 3 girls connecting to him

[Anonymous No.7385058]

>>7384875
you can cover up acne with make-up, who would've guessed!

[Anonymous No.7385071]

>>7385049
fucked 3 virgins and killed them

[Anonymous No.7385077]

>>7385013
>This is why the way sex is conducted varies widely from culture to culture
They don't vary widely though, in reality they're amazingly similar.

I have a book recommendation for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate

[Anonymous No.7385118]

>>7385077
I'm well aware of Pinker, you giant faggot. While his points are great to get the ball rolling and to dispel tabula rasa bullshit, he goes way too far and practically spouts genetic determinism.

And in terms of mating practices, they do vary. The fact that people fuck each other regardless of norms means little. The behavior that produces children is what matters, and you can't tell me that a Nepalese polyandrous family is "amazingly similar" to 21st century American live-in boyfriend/girlfriend situations.

[Anonymous No.7385294]

>>7384563
It certainly does. If male and female sexual strategy has nothing to do with biology, why would a Stanford professor of biology feel qualified to speak on it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOY3QH_jOtE&feature=youtu.be&t=1h5m53s

[Anonymous No.7385303]

The funny part is that sociologist are lowest of the low on any status. You can now keep your non-science on /soc.

[Anonymous No.7385370]

>>7385118
>I'm well aware of Pinker, you giant faggot.
Very hostile. Sounds like you have a lot of pent up anger.

>his points are great to get the ball rolling and to dispel tabula rasa bullshit
If you think tabula rasa is bullshit then you must believe biology plays a part in behaviour. Why are you arguing against me when you agree with me? This anon says it best: >>7385031

>The behavior that produces children is what matters, and you can't tell me that a Nepalese polyandrous family is "amazingly similar" to 21st century American live-in boyfriend/girlfriend situations.
Its practiced in extremely poor rural areas as a way to prevent family land from being separated. Funnily enough, in that same culture if there is no land to be separated polyandry does not occur. It's as if people tend towards some innate biologically determined behaviour when culture doesn't force certain behaviours :)

Fraternal polyandry is a good example of kin selection, another case of biology affecting behaviour.

You're focusing on a small number of differences and ignoring the huge number of similarities. The Nepalese and American females are both attracted to health, intelligence, status, resources etc. They'r both less eager for casual sex than the men in their respective cultures. Why do all cultures have these similarities if biology has nothing to do with behaviour?

[Anonymous No.7385372]

>>7385370
are you biologically programmed to argue like a sperg while wasting the best years of your life on austrian cigar forum?

[Anonymous No.7385381]

>>7385372
Been casually watching this conversation. Just adding my two cents to say not only am I not impressed, I am disappointed. Get yourself together, anon.

[Anonymous No.7385400]

>>7385381
i wasn't even the guy you were originally responding too

How do you reconcile arguing with losers about unimportant shit on 4chan with your biological determinism?

Does that mean you're predestined to be a loser?

[Anonymous No.7385406]

simply empirical evidence.

[Anonymous No.7385438]

>>7385400
My last post was: >>7382944

Like I said, casually watching how these conversations pan out. Part of me does like heated and in depth conversations though. Sates a desire for conflict, and allows me to harvest value from others. It's a very bad mindset to get too deep into though, I'll just warn you not to throw out your humanity or fully strip other people of human qualities. Causes you to stop employing aspects of theory of mind over time, and you'll understand people only on a mechanical level while deluding yourself into believing it is the whole or accurate enough that you don't need to see anything else.

You seem to be troubled. I am troubled too. Hope you figure it out.

[Anonymous No.7385451]

>>7385438
>>7385400

Rekt

[Anonymous No.7385590]

>>7385370
>>7385438

[Anonymous No.7385604]

>>7385381
>>7385438